AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Raipur (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 4-7-2002, passed in Claim Case No. 391/2002. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and father of deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv, claimed compensation of Rs. 15,20,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 12-4-2001, when the Metador bearing registration No. MP/24-9023 in which he was travelling with his vegetables was dashed by the offending vehicle Dumper, bearing registration No. MP/24C/3271, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month by selling vegetables.
The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Dumper did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the Dumper contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the Dumper was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the Dumper was not holding a valid driving licence.
The claimants examined AW 1 Nandni Bai, AW 2 Ramesh Kumar & AW 3 Vijay Singh Thakur in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the Dumper did not examine any witness in rebuttal.
The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-4-2001, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper, as the offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv at Rs. 1,300/-per month. By deducting a sum of Rs. 400/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs. 900/- per month and Rs. 10,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,800/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 10,000/- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv in the motor accident. The Tribunal directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 1,300/- per month only; in selecting lower multiplier of 10 and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1.18,000/- only.
Shri N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased the compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the driver of the dumper was responsible for the accident and the insurer of the offending vehicle dumper was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are not under challenge before us in this appeal. That apart, these finding have now attained finality, as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Though, the claimants pleaded that deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month by selling vegetables, the evidence led by them in that behalf before the Tribunal was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal in the event of discarding claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The unfortunate accident in the present case wherein deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv lost his life took place in the year 2001. If we take into consideration the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 and 2001, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to Rs. 24,000/- in the year 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000/- per annum.
By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. Deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident whereas his widow Smt. Nandni Bai Dhruv was shown 26 years of age in the claim petition filed in the year 2002. In our opinion, the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case.
By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 5.000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv in the motor accident.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that to avoid any delay in the computation of the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest may be quantified in this appeal itself. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- at Rs. 13.000/-.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,55,000/- with future quantified amount of interest of Rs. 13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation.
The entire enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs. 13,000/- (total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-) shall be payable to appellant No. 1 Smt. Nandni Bai, widow of deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv.
Respondent No, 3/New India Insurance Company Ltd., is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 1,37,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 13,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.