Smt. Saleeman vs Brijesh Kumar Maheshwari and Another

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Manish Dalakoti, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 13.5.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 53 of 1999, Smt. Saleeman v. Brijesh Kumar Maheshwari and Anr., awarding Rs. 1,37,000 (Rupees one lac thirty seven thousand only) as compensation to the claimant/ appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 12.12.1998 till the date of payment of compensation against the National Insurance Company.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 19th April, 1998 at about 10:15 a.m. deceased was going to Haldwani by Truck No. URN/9371. It has been alleged by the claimant that the deceased had his goods loaded over the truck. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently due which it met with an accident near village Kishanpur, P.S. Kichchha. The deceased Sri Anees Ahmad sustained fatal injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot, the report of the aforesaid .incident was lodged at P.S. Kichchha.

The deceased was doing business of selling vegetables and was earning Rs. 6,000 per month. The claim petition was contested by the opposite parties.

Respondent No. 1. which is owner of the Truck, has filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. He has denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.

Respondent No. 2, the National Insurance Company has also contested the claim petition and filed written statement, in which, it has also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. The Insurance Company has further alleged that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the Truck and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

On the pleadings of the party, the Claim Tribunal framed four issues.

Issue No. 1 is with regard to the accident due to rash and negligent driving.

Issue No. 2 was framed as to whether the deceased was bona Jide passenger of the truck.

Issue No. 3 was as to whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the truck driver.

Issue No. 4 is with regard to relief.

After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the Truck Driver.

Issue No. 2 was decided in negative and it has been held that the deceased was bona Jide passenger of the Truck as he was carrying goods by the Truck.

In reply of issue No. 3, it has been held that the petition is not bad for non-joinder of Truck Driver.

The Claims Tribunal has held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500 and after applying multiplier of 11, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,000 as compensation besides this a sum of Rs. 2,000 for the funeral expenses of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate has been awarded.

Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The findings of the Claims Tribunal on issues No. 1 to 3 have not been disputed before us. The main grievance of the appellant is that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years and the Claims Tribunal has only applied multiplier of 11, which is not proper. In the present case, the claimant is wife of the deceased, Sri Raflque Ahmad, obviously her age is less than the deceased. Therefore, to select the multiplier, the age of the deceased shall be taken into account.

According to Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the person of age of 35 years multiplier of 10 should be taken. The Claims AWC 87 Tribunal has held the income of the deceased Rs. 18,000 (eighteen . thousand) per year and after deducting 1/3rd. of the same, i.e., 6,000, the pecuniary loss to the claimant is Rs. 12,000 per annum. Thus, by multiplying Rs. 12,000 to 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000 and as such the appellant is entitled to get the said amount.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 4 has wrongly calculated the multiplier and as such the appellant is entitled for the amount of Rs. 1,92,000.

So far as the other findings are concerned, however, apart from that the appellant will also be entitled for the funeral charges of Rs. 2,000, for loss of estate 2,500.

In Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav 2004 ACC 396 it has been stated by the Apex Court that so far as the argument of the respondent is concerned, the proper multiplier of 16 cannot be used. It has also been stated in the aforesaid decision that future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand.

The observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case are quoted below :

"So far as the adoption of the proper multiplier is concerned, it was observed that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the choice of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, the ascertaining of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future."

In view of the above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,97,000 from the Insurance Company respondent No. 2 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9%.

Therefore, respondent No. 2 Insurance Company is directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,97,000 along with 9% pendente lite and future interest within a period of one month.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.