Umari vs Devi Singh

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—The appellants have laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act of 1988'') challenging the award dated 17.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short, ''learned Tribunal'') in Civil Misc. Case No. 11/1997, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,13,800/-.

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.1996, Jagdish Gameta was going to Balecha from Udaipur in the tractor of one Lalu Meena along with some labourers. When the tractor reached Goverdhan Villas, a bus, bearing No. GJ-1T-5217 coming from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed with the tractor, as a result of which Ramesh, Raju and Tulsiram sustained injuries and Jagdish, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, expired. One more person named Lalu also lost his life in the said accident.

The appellants have pleaded in the claim petition that, at the time of death, the deceased was 35 years old and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The respondent No. 1 filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments contained therein. The learned Tribunal framed three issues for determination and granted compensation as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is laid for enhancing the amount of compensation.

Mr. Suresh Shrimali, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two contentions before this Court; firstly, deceased was 35 years old when he met with the fatal accident, therefore, as per the Second Schedule attached to the Act of 1988, a multiplier of seventeen ought to have been applied by the learned Tribunal instead of multiplier of twelve. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying an incorrect multiplier for assessing compensation. Secondly, considering the fact that the income of deceased would have increased by efflux of time, future loss of income should have been considered by the learned Tribunal for assessment of reasonable compensation.

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of twelve while taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, submits that the application of multiplier of twelve cannot be questioned and same requires no interference. Secondly, as per learned counsel, there is no evidence to show that deceased would have got steep rise in his income in the times to come. Therefore, he submits that there is no necessity for considering his future prospect of loss of income while assessing compensation.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned award and have perused the entire record of the learned Tribunal.

So far as the multiplier is concerned, submission of learned counsel for insurer that the multiplier of twelve was applied looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case has not impressed me on examining the impugned award. As a matter of fact, the impugned award does not reveal the mind of the learned Tribunal for assigning any reason for deviation from the Second Schedule attached to the Act of 1988. The learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of twelve, whereas the multiplier of seventeen ought to have been applied in accordance with the said schedule. In catena of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that Courts should use Second Schedule as a guideline, but in case, the learned Tribunal deviates from the guidelines, it must state cogent reasons for such deviation. In the present case, there is no whisper for applying the multiplier of twelve instead of a multiplier of seventeen. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the multiplier of twelve has been erroneously applied by the learned Tribunal. In my considered opinion, for making just and fair assessment of compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to have pressed into service multiplier of seventeen.

The gory tragedy has engulfed the life of deceased Jagdish Gameta at the age of 35 years and the learned Tribunal has made a moderate assessment of his monthly income as Rs. 1,000/-. The inflation and revision in the rates of wages could have yielded desired results in advancement of the career of deceased and progressively increase in his monthly wages had he survived for his whole life. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it was desirable from the learned Tribunal to have considered future loss of income to the bereaved family.

Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , while emphasizing the need for assessment of compensation objectively held in para 17 as under: -

Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated: (SCC p. 185, para 16)

"16.... The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for the assessment of compensation."

Well it is true that deceased was not in permanent employment, but, at the same time, it is difficult to presume that he was earning his livelihood by self-employment, or was on a fixed salary.

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and, looking to the occupation of the deceased, to meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper to award atleast 30% hike for the loss of future income and thus his monthly income is taken as Rs. 1,300/-. After deducting one-third from the said income, as he would have spent upon himself, the deceased would have spent Rs. 867/- upon his family.

Thus, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the amount of compensation under the head of "loss of dependency" is redetermined and reassessed as under: -

Rs. 867 X 12 X 17=Rs. 1,76,868/-

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 17.04.2002 in Civil Misc. Case No. 11/1997 is modified enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, while holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of enhanced amount, as under:

The learned Judge, MACT, is directed to ensure that the respondents pays the entire amount including the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation after adjusting the amount already deposited and disbursed to the appellant.

The learned Judge is also directed to see that the remaining compensation amount is paid to the appellants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

The registry is directed to immediately send back the record to the concerned learned Tribunal.