Smt. Missar Kaur and Others vs Sh. Jai Singh and Another

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of the present appeal, the appellants seeks to challenge the impugned award whereby compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal.

Brief summary of facts are that Sh. Rai Singh, on 6.8.1984 at about 9:30 a.m. was going on his bicycle on Rohtak Road when DTC bus bearing registration No. DEP-8774 (Route No. 902) came from Idgah side towards Liberty Cinema being driven by Sh. Jain Singh in a most rash and negligent manner and without caring for the traffic rule, hit Shri Rai Singh as a result of which he fell down and was dragged by the front left wheel of the bus for about 10-15 steps and died on the spot.

Mr. R.D. Shahalia, counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the income of the deceased which was proved on record. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month from his job of shoe making and the said income was duly proved on record by the appellant but ignoring the said income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the deceased was survived by a large family comprising of six children and widow but the Tribunal has allowed deduction of 1/3 income from the earnings of the deceased towards personal expenses which as per the counsel for the appellant should have been either 1/6th or 1/5th at the most.

Counsel for the appellants further contends that no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the multiplier.

Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel for the respondent DTC on the other hand contends that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month as there was contradiction between the testimony of PW4 and PW6 due to which the Tribunal disbelieved the income pleaded by the appellants. In any event of the matter counsel for the respondent contends that the Tribunal has still taken into account the income at a quite higher rate i.e., Rs. 1,000/- per month despite inconsistent stand taken by the said witness in their deposition.

Counsel for the respondent further justifies that multiplier of 12 is an appropriate multiplier keeping in view the date of accident i.e., 6.8.1984 which was much prior to the insertion of the IInd Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act.

With regard to the deduction, counsel for the respondent contends that 1/3 deductions from the earnings of the deceased are normally taken into consideration for determining the loss towards financial dependents.

With regard to the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss towards love and affection, counsel for the respondent contends that no such claim was raised by the appellant, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not considered granting compensation to the appellant under these heads.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Perusal of the record shows that the appellant failed to prove on record that he was earning an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month from his job of shoe making at his shop No. 8-UA, Jawahar Nagar. There was a contradiction between the statements made by PW4 and PW6 with regard to the said earning of the deceased, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/-. In any event of the matter, the Tribunal has not taken into account any lower income for determining financial loss of dependents. The income thus arrived at by the Tribunal @ Rs. 1,000/- does not call for any interference.

It is not in dispute that the deceased was survived by six children and a widow and keeping in view the large family left by the deceased, deduction of 1/3 income of deceased does not appear to be justified. Deduction of 1/5 of the earning of the deceased towards personal expenses would be just and appropriate. Multiplier of 12 has been applied by the Tribunal as the accident in the present case had taken place much prior to the insertion of structural formula of IInd Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and all the dependent family members, appropriate multiplier of the IInd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is 15.

Prior to the said amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court in Sussamma Thomas has held that the maximum multiplier of 16 shall be applicable and thus, highest multiplier of 16 became the guiding factor for the applicability of the multiplier in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Striking the balance between the multiplier of 12 as adopted by the Tribunal and that of the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 13 would better serve the ends of justice. No compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium although the deceased at the time of accident was of 45 years of age. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses is awarded. The differential amount shall be paid by the DTC along with up to date interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final realization.

The matter is remanded back to the tribunal for passing directions for apportionment of the entire compensation amount amongst the claimants appellants

In view of the above discussion, the matter is disposed of.