Teepu Devi and Others vs Mohammed and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.�The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment cum award dated 6.2.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Jodhpur in MAC No. 49/1998 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants appellants on account of death of Ghewar Ram in a road accident was partly allowed and they were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,03,000/- as against the claimed amount of Rs. 18,20,000/-. The appellants have approached this Court by way of the instant appeal seeking enhancement in the award.

Facts in brief are that the deceased Ghewar Ram was a labourer and on 30.5.1997 was traveling with some other labourers in a truck bearing registration No. RRN2092 for going towards the mines where he used to work. The truck was being driven by one Aidana Ram. It is alleged that when the truck which was going on the correct side of the road reached just ahead of the Fidusar Chopad at 7:30 AM, another truck bearing registration No. RJ 19.G.6494 loaded with stones being driven by Mohammed S/o. Jamal Khan non-claimant No. 1, owned by non-claimant No. 2 Sh. Vishnu Ram and insured by non-claimant No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, came from the opposite direction. The driver of the aforesaid truck drove the same rashly and negligently and came to the wrong side of the road and collided with the truck in which Ghewar Ram was traveling. As a result of the collision, all the occupants of the truck bearing registration No. RRN2092 received injuries. Pepa Ram, who was sitting in the truck expired at the spot. Ghewar Ram was taken to the hospital where he passed away while undergoing treatment. A claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was moved by the appellants claimants who are the widow, six minor children and the parents of Ghewar Ram.

The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration and ultimately, allowed the claim application in the following terms:

� The dependency of the claimants on the deceased was held to be Rs. 15,000/- per year.

� Multiplier of 18 was applied and accordingly, the loss of income was assessed at Rs. 2,70,000/-.

� Rs. 2000/- was awarded for funeral expenses.

� Rs. 1000/- was awarded for transportation expenses.

� Appellant No. 1 the widow of the deceased was awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium.

� Appellants No. 2 to 7 the minor children of the deceased were awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- each for the loss of love and affection.

� The parents of the deceased being claimants No. 8 and 9 were awarded Rs. 2500/- each for loss of love, affection and service.

� The total award was assessed at Rs. 3,03,000/-.

Shri M.R. Choudhary challenged the award on the following grounds:--

� The Tribunal was in error in holding the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased to be only Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

� The evidence led by the claimants was not challenged by meaningful cross-examination and thus, their case regarding the income of the deceased should have been accepted as such.

� The Tribunal did not consider rise in income of the deceased by future prospects while assessing the loss of income caused to the claimants.

� The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the wife of the deceased for loss of consortium and the amount of Rs. 2500/- each awarded to the children and the parents of the deceased towards loss of love, affection and service is absolutely inadequate.

� The deduction of income to the extent of 1/5th only was permissible from the income of the deceased towards personal needs and expenses.

He thus prayed that appropriate enhancement be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellants.

Per contra, Shri M.P. Goswami learned counsel appearing for Shri Anil Bachhawat learned counsel for the respondent insurance company vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that as the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in light of the table proposed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, would be 17 and not 18 as done by the Tribunal.

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record.

The appellants pleaded in the claim application that the deceased used to earn Rs. 175/- per day by working on the mines. Only oral evidence was led to prove this fact. The Tribunal in a conjectural fashion assessed the annual dependency of the claimants upon the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- that is to say Rs. 1250/- per month. There is no basis for this finding. Accordingly, in view of the evidence, which has been led by the claimants before the Tribunal and applying the standard of minimum wages as prescribed by the State Government in the notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act and as the deceased was working on a mine at the time of the accident, his daily income at the time of the accident is held to be at Rs. 70/- per day i.e. to say Rs. 2100/- per month. To the said monthly income, 50% increase deserves to be acknowledged under the head of rise in income by future prospects as the deceased was just 28 years of age at the time of the accident. The deduction from the income towards personal needs and expenses would be 1/5th looking to the fact that the claimants are nine in number. As the deceased was 28 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in light of the table proposed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would be 17 and not 18 as done by the Tribunal. The amount awarded to the appellant wife towards loss of consortium is unjustly low and the same deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. The amount of Rs. 2500/- awarded to each of the children and parents of the deceased towards loss of love, affection and service also deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 5000/- each.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following computation is approved for assessing the enhanced compensation to which the appellants are entitled to:--

The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the original amount at the rate decided by the learned Tribunal i.e. 9% per annum. On the enhanced amount, the interest applicable would be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

The insurance company respondent No. 3 is granted six weeks time to deposit the awarded amount with the Tribunal.

In order to ascertain that the claimants are benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount:--

(1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants by account payee cheque.

(2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimants periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits.

(3) If in any emergent condition the claimants require the modification of the said direction, they shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for modification.

Any amount already paid by the insurance company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.