Tarkeshwar Singh Rajput and Another vs Harendra Singh and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ''the Tribunal''), vide award dated 21.12.2000, passed in Claim Case No. 29/1997.

The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Vijay Kumar Singh claimed compensation of Rs. 6,99,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 14.1.1997, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.P. 23D/9135, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Vijay Kumar Singh was aged about 19 years and used to earn as Labour in Nagpur Engineering, Durg.

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

The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer took the further 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 AW-1 Tarkeshwar Singh, AW-2 Kamlesh Dwivedi and AW-3 Sanjog Kumar Saini in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck examined NAW-1 Rajendra Vaishnav in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claimants son Vijay Kumar Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.1.1997; 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 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. By deducting l/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vijay Kumar Singh in the motor accident on 14.1.1997. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment.

Shri Ashish Surana & Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsel or 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. 15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/-only.

Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the owner of the Truck also support the impugned award.

The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants'' son Vijay Kumar Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.1.1997; 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 have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal.

In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The claimants pleaded that their son deceased Vijay Kumar Singh used to work as Labour in Nagpur Engineering. AW-1 Tarkeshwar Singh in his evidence before the Tribunal has categorically deposed that his son Vijay Kumar Singh used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month including overtime allowance. AW-3 Sanjog Kumar Saini has also categorically stated that deceased Vijay Kumar Singh was working as Labour in Nagpur Engineering under his contract. He has further stated that an amount of Rs. 100/- per day was being paid by him to the deceased inclusive of all allowances. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants before the Tribunal establish the income of deceased Vijay Kumar Singh to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month. We, therefore, propose to recomputed the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum.

Considering that deceased Vijay Kumar Singh was unmarried on the date of the accident and would have been married in due course; and after his marriage his contribution to the parents 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. 18,000/- per annum.

Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased the multiplier, should never exceed 10.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation is worked out to Rs. 1,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled 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. 1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Vijay Kumar Singh in the motor accident on 14.1.1997.

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 interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

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, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 28,000/- at Rs. 7,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 28,000/-.

Respondent No. 3/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. 28,000/-towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 7,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 28,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.