Uma Devi vs Surinder Singh

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—Uma Devi-widow, Marry and Dhannun minor daughters and Magesn and Nag Raj minor sons of deceased-Pheru Mal, a junk dealer, aged about 30 years, stated to be earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, brought MACT Case No. RT 36 of 1994 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Roper (for short ''the Tribunal'') for claiming compensation alleging that Pheru Mal (hereinafter referred to as ''deceased'') died on 15.01.1994 on account of rash and negligent driving of Yamha motorcycle bearing registration No. CH-01E-1183 by respondent No. 1 Surinder Singh as he smashed his motorcycle into the scooter bearing registration No. PB-12-5931, which was being driven by G. Murg Sen. The deceased, according to the case of the appellants, was riding pillion of the aforesaid scooter and is stated to have died instantaneously.

In the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents averments of the claimants were denied.

From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal formulated following issues:-

Whether Pheru Mal alias Pheru Mani died in motor vehicle accident on 25.01.1994 due to the rash and negligent driving of Surinder Singh while driving motorcycle No. CH-1-E-1183? OPP

Whether the driver of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident? If, so its effect? OPR

Whether the motor cycle in question is insured with respondent New India Assurance Company? OPR

Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPP

Relief.

After both the sides had adduced evidence, learned Tribunal decided issued No. 1 in favour of the appellants, and issues No. 2 and 3 in favour of first respondent. However, while disposing of issue No. 4 pertaining to the claim of the appellants for compensation, learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- per month and loss of dependency at Rs. 800/- per month. By applying multiplier of 16, the appellants were held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,60,600/-. Findings of the learned Tribunal on issued No. 4 are assailed in the present appeal and it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced appropriately so as to make it just compensation within the meaning of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the award of learned Tribunal and the record.

There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence, negligence of the first respondent and liability of the respondents to pay compensation.

As regards income of the deceased, loss of dependency and multiplier to be applied, it will be relevant to refer to a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, wherein it has been held that in case of a deceased leaving behind four or more dependents, 1/4th of the assessed income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and in case of a person having fixed income, no additions are permissible. It is also held by Hon''ble Supreme Court that in case of death of deceased between 26 to 30 years, multiplier of 17 has to be applied.

There is no dispute as regards age of the deceased on the day of his death being 30 years. Learned Tribunal, in my view, has committed an error in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/- per month, because it has come in the evidence of PW 1 that the deceased was giving to her an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month for running the household and the respondents are also found to have suggested to the witnesses that income of the deceased was Rs. 2000/- per month.

In this view of the matter, income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 2000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th of the assessed income, i.e. Rs. 500/-, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500/- per month or say Rs. 18000/- per annum. As aforesaid, no additions are permissible. By applying the multiplier of 17, compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs. 3,06,000/-. In addition to the above, the appellants are also entitled to an amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium as regards appellant-Uma Devi. This brings the amount of compensation payable to the appellants to Rs. 3,16,000/-.

Enhanced amount of compensation so assessed shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till the date of payment/realization of the enhanced amount.

It has already been noted that there is no dispute as regards liability of the respondents to pay the amount of compensation.

Out of the amount of compensation, appellant No. 1 Uma Devi shall receive an amount of Rs. 2 lacs and the remaining amount shall be shared by the appellants No. 2 to 5 in equal shares. No costs.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.