Smt. Pramila Bai vs Vakil Ahmad and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This is claimant''s appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") vide Award dated 7-8-1997 passed in Claim Case No. 63/1996.

Claimant-Smt. Pramila Bai, widow of deceased Pran Dewangan claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- for the death of her husband in the motor accident on 21-4-1996 when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MP 23 D 7186, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimant further pleaded that her husband Pran Dewangan used to earn Rs. 4000/- per month as cloth merchant.

The owner and driver of the offending vehicle truck did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex pane before the Tribunal. The insurer of the truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the ground that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The claimant examined herself as A.W. 1 and A.W. 2 Goverdhan Das in support of her claim, whereas, the insurer of the truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before, it held that the claimant''s husband Pran Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21-4-1996, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-truck; and as the truck was insured on the date of accident with United India Insurance Company Ltd., the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

As the evidence led by the claimant about the income of the deceased was not found reliable by the Tribunal, his income was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per month by the Tribunal on its own estimate. By deducting 50% of Rs. 2000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant''s dependancy was assessed at Rs. 1000/- per month and Rs. 12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,20,000/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Pran Dewangan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant''s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 2000/- per month only; in deducting half of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the claimant.

Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Ltd., on the other hand supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- 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 Pran Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21-4-1996; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-truck; and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant, are not under challenge before us in this appeal. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The claimant pleaded that her husband Pran Dcwangan used to earn Rs. 4000/- per month as cloth merchant. The evidence led by the claimant about the income of her husband is not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant''s evidence about the income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the income of Rs. 2000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side. Considering the fact that deceased Pran Dewangan was aged about 50-55 years and was carrying on business as cloth merchant, we are of the opinion that his income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

As there were only two members in the family, i.e., deceased Pran Dewangan and his wife/claimant-Pramila Bai, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By deducting 50% of Rs. 36,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant''s dependency is assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per annum.

Considering that the deceased was aged about 50-55 years and his widow claimant-Pramila Dewangan was shown as 45 years of age in the claim petition, we are satisfied that the multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,80,000/-. By adding the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal under other permissible heads, the claimant becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Pran Dewangan in the motor accident. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the 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 on the enhanced amount of compensation at Rs. 20,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant u/s 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 20,000/-.

Respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company is granted three months time for depositing the sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. 60,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 20,000/- as quantified interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.