Tapeswari Devi and Another vs Mohd. Raish and Another

Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.—The present appeal has been preferred u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the ''Act'' for short) against the award dated 22nd March, 2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2009 Smt. Tapeswari Devi & Ors. v. Mohd. Raish & Ors., awarding compensation of Rs. 1,17,000 on account of death of Km. Laxmi Chaurasia in a motor accident occurred on 6th November, 2008 at 1.15 p.m. on Campbell Road near Bajpai Misthan Bhandar, P.S. Thakur Ganj, District Lucknow. Factual matrix for deciding this appeal is that on the fateful day Km. Laxmi Chaurasia was going on his bicycle for computer coaching to Rajajeepuram and when she reached at about 1.15 p.m. on Campbell Road near Bajpai Misthan Bhandar on 6th November, 2008 a truck having registration No. U.P.-32A-1626 coming from Balaganj side, hit the bicycle from its back. In this accident cyclist Km. Laxmi Chaurasia received grievous injuries and succumbed to it while under treatment in Trauma Centre Medical College, Lucknow after about 2 hours.

It was pleaded from the side of the appellant-claimants that deceased was about 19 years and getting Rs. 3,000 per month from tuition and teaching in private school. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was spent in her treatment in Trauma Centre Medical College, Lucknow. Thus, they claimed a total compensation of Rs. 9,50,000.

The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. It was contested by the owner of the truck Mohd. Raish (respondent No. 1) and insurer of truck I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Motor Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2).

The Tribunal framed different issues and decided the claim in favour of the claimants who were the parents of the deceased holding therein that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the truck driver, wherein the deceased received serious injuries and succumbed to it. The vehicle in question was duly insured with respondent No. 2 at the time of accident. The vehicle was being driven by an effective and valid driving licence holder and lastly determined the income of the deceased on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum in light of Second Schedule of the Act meant for awarding compensation u/s 163A of the Act, for want of any evidence of income of the deceased.

After deducting 1/2 of the amount towards the own expenses, the dependency of Rs. 7,500 per year has been assessed. Considering the age of the father of deceased as 40 years multiplier of 15 was applied and the compensation was derived at Rs. 1,12,500. In addition to it, Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses of the deceased and Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate was also added. Thus, the total compensation was determined at Rs. 1,17,000.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The appeal was pressed only for enhancement of compensation. No cross appeal has been filed by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in MG. Dir., Bangalore Metropolitan Tpt. Corp. Vs. Sarojamma and Another, , wherein the income of deceased determined at Rs. 3000 p.m., the multiplier of 15 was applied in the case of an unmarried boy of 18 years who died in motor accident, keeping in view the 45 years of age of mother being only legal heir. This petition was filed u/s 163A of the Act and the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000, out of which 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and determined the dependency of parents at Rs. 3,84,000.

On the strength of above mentioned authority, the learned Counsel pointed out that minimum income of the deceased in this case would be assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month and after applying the same principle, which the Tribunal applied, compensation should be re-determined. However, he further submitted that instead of deduction of 1/2 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, in view of the aforesaid judgment only 1/3rd amount should be reduced towards personal expenses. It was further submitted that the notional income should be determined not less than Rs. 100 per day as has been done in the case reported in Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, .

On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that it was a case of a girl having age of 19 years. Generally the Indian families are patrilocal. The marriage of girls performed and, thereafter, they join her in-laws house. Therefore, at the most the dependency in this case of the parents would be assessed by adopting multiplier of 5 because marriage of girls ordinarily performed in between 18 and 25 years of age. It was further submitted that in the case of girls the principle of determining compensation of a young boy cannot be adopted. It was further submitted that the notional income in case of absence of any evidence could be assessed at only Rs. 15,000 per annum. Moreover, in view of the statutory provisions contained in Second Schedule of the Act the award delivered by the Tribunal is on the excessive side and it is not liable to be interfered with.

We have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

We are of the view that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is not on excessive side rather it is on the lower side. The reasons for the same is that in Sub-section (3) of Section 163A of the Act it is clearly mentioned that the Second Schedule should be revised from time-to-time. Provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 163A are quoted herein below:

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in Official Gazette, from time-to-time amend the Second Schedule.

This provision in the Act was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14th November, 1994 but, thereafter the Central Government is apathetic in discharging their statutory obligations towards the unfortunate of victims of motor accident. However our Supreme Court took notice of it and considered the rising price index and the wages of daily labourers and held in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra), that the notional income should be taken at least Rs. 100 per day in absence of any evidence in regard to income of deceased or victims of motor accident while determining the compensation.

We cannot over look that the case in hand is not a case of Section 163A of the Act but it is a case of Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not abided by the strict structural determination of compensation in terms of Second Schedule of the Act. The Tribunals should act keeping in mind the socioeconomic changes through out the globe and especially in the light of the Indian society and the law propounded by the Higher Courts from time-to-time.

In a very recent judgment the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , has held that the law awarding compensation is precedent orient and Tribunals should keep in mind while awarding compensation the socio-economic conditions of individual victim and his family. The Apex Court also liberalized the principle laid down in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), and observed that even in the case of individuals who were not Government servants or professional or those serving in private sector or on fix pay or doing business, trade, etc. should also be considered for benefit of enhancement of their income up to the extent of 30%.

We can also take notice of the present scenario where a lot of debate is going on about gender justice. Now-a-days the girls are not lacking behind the boys. So far as the employments of both are concerned, the females are occupying prestigious job in top places not only in corporate sector but also in higher grade Government services and they are also leading institutions and companies. Therefore, we should not shut our eyes in the present socioeconomic conditions of women globally accepted that no distinction could be drawn on the basis of gender i.e., in between girls and boys, man or woman. In view of this, we cannot distinguish the loss of life of a daughter lessor than a son, so far as parents are concerned.

In view of the case of Laxmi Devi (supra), we are of the view that the minimum income at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month should be treated as notional income of the deceased while computing the compensation payable to the claimant-parents. In Sarla Verma case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in the case of unmarried deceased and in absence of any cogent evidence of actual dependency of the claimants, the personal expenses should be deducted to the'' extent of 50% of the income assessed of the unmarried deceased.

By means of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 26th September, 2011, a new Rule 220A was added. The newly added Rule contains in Sub-rule (2)(i) that the deduction towards personal expenses of a deceased unmarried shall be 50% and where the family of a bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, the deduction shall be 33.33% (1/3).

There is nothing on record to show that there is any other claimant except the parents of the deceased in this case. It is also not on record that there is no one other member to look after the parents after the deceased in this case.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the compensation in this case should be determined in this case treating the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting half of the amount towards personal expenses the dependency shall be of Rs. 18,000 per annum. The multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in this case considering the age of parents. Therefore, the amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 2,70,000 and after adding a sum of Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate, total comes Rs. 2,74,500. We find it to be a fair and just compensation in this case.

Consequently, the amount of compensation is accordingly enhanced from Rs. 1,17,000 to Rs. 2,74,500. Accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned award is liable to be modified.

No other point has been pressed and argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

The amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,17,000 to Rs. 2,74,500, which would be payable to the claimants with pendente lite and future simple interest at rate of 6% p.a. The award is accordingly modified to that extent. The entire amount awarded by this Court should be paid by respondent No. 2 within one month from the date of this order. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal concerned. The amount, if any, deposited in this Court be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith but not later than a month. The Insurance Company will deposit the entire amount after adjusting the amount deposited by it earlier. The Tribunal, thereafter, shall disburse the deposited amount to the claimants expeditiously within a period of two months to the claimants in terms of the award. Registrar of this Court shall take follow-up action.

There is no order as to costs.