Sukhwati @ Bhuri and Others vs Prahalad and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 29-7-1988, passed in Claim Case No. 3/92.

As against the compensation of Rs. 7,87,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Dayalu, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14-12-1991, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Dayalu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14-12-1991; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. MP-9D/4969; as it was not established that Prahalad, driver of the offending vehicle truck was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, the insurer of the truck was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

As the insurer of the truck was exonerated from its liability, the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/- and the interest thereon was payable by the owner and driver of the truck.

Shri A.L. Singraul, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum only; in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/-; and in exonerating the insurer of the truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 -National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and submitted that, as no material was produced before the Tribunal to establish that, the driver of the truck was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal in Para 11 of the award has considered the entire material available on record before coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

Shri A.L. Singraul, learned Counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate from the record that respondent No. 1 Prahalad, driver of the offending vehicle truck was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that, respondent No. 1 Prahalad, driver of the offending vehicle truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. As such, we do not find any fault in the exoneration of the insurer of the truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants by the Tribunal.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that, deceased Dayalu used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month as labour, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Even otherwise, in the year of accident, i.e., 1991, the wages being paid to the coolies in the truck were not to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, which primarily appears to be based on the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 1/3rd in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, .

Considering that deceased Dayalu was aged about 35 years and his widow Sukhwati @ Bhuri was shown to be 30 years of age in the claim petition, multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants'' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

The appeal, filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation and against the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the insurer of the truck from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants, fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.