Suresh Kumar and Another vs Tamseshwar Sahu and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated: 27.03.2004, passed in Claim case No.121/2002.

The appellants/claimants, unfortunate brother and mother of deceased Vinod Shajeeda, claimed compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.03.2002, when his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P. 23 MD 8008 was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04 ZC 0748, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Vinod Shajeeda was aged about 24 years and used to earn Rs. 3,800/- per month as Marketing agent of Rajesh Enterprises, D.S. Collections & R.D. Sons.

The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal.

The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The claimants examined AW1 Udendra Kumar Soni and AW2 Pari Bai in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Vinod Shajeeda died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.03.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,03,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vinod Shajeeda in the motor accident. The tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, 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.18,000/-per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- only.

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- 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 Vinod Shajeeda died an account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.03.2002; the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are based on the evidence and material available on record. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the tribunal.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Vinod Shajeeda used to earn Rs.3,800/- per month by working as Marketing Agent of Rajesh Enterprises, D.S. Collections & R.D. Sons, but the evidence led in that behalf was 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 the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.50/- per day; Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

The tribunal while discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the second schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Vinod Shajeeda lost his life, took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

As deceased Vinod Shajeeda was un-married on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the mother and brother would have been reduced substantially, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants'' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum.

As claimant No. 2 Smt. Pari Bai, the mother of deceased Vinod Shajeeda was shown to be 58 years of age in the claim petition, the multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the Second Schedule u/s 163A prescribes the multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55 years to 60 years.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitle to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation for the death of Vinod Shajeeda in the motor accident on 15-03-2002.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Vinod Shajeeda lost his life took place in the year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in year 2002; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2004; and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the year 2004; and the same is being finally decided in the year 2009. 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, quantify the amount of interest on enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27,000/-at Rs.3,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27,000/-.

Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, is granted three month''s time for depositing the total sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.27,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.