U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Deepa Karwal and Others

B.C. Kandpal, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.7.2007 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 142 of 2003, Deepa Karwal v. U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation.

Brief facts of the case are that on 29.8.2003, Lalit Karwal (deceased) was going from Roorkee to Haldwani by driving Hero Honda motor cycle No. UP 11-J 7543 on the left side of the road. At about 4 p.m., when he reached near Shanidev Mandir and Dhaba of Kishan Lal within the area of village Jwalapur, District Haridwar, suddenly a bus bearing registration No. UP 15-B 8712, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said motor cycle. In the said accident, both the occupants of the motor cycle sustained serious injuries and Lalit Karwal succumbed to the injuries. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 32 years of age and used to earn Rs. 10,000 per month by running a repairing shop of radio, TV, etc. Hence, an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was claimed as compensation.

Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. On receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim application by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 6,27,000 along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment vide judgment and award dated 20.7.2007.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Appellant U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for Appellant, Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondents-claimants and perused the record.

As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard.

As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 5 has dealt with this point but the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be wrong. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500 per month without any plausible evidence available on record. The claimants have mentioned in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a TV repair mechanic and having his own shop thereby earning Rs. 10,000 per month. Davendra Kumar Saini (PW 3) was also produced before court who has stated that he knew Lalit Karwal who learned the TV repairing work in his shop for 7 years, thereafter, he opened his own shop. He has also stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000 per month from the work of TV repairing. The deposition of Deepa Karwal, who has stated that her husband used to earn Rs. 10,000 per month is absolutely without any basis. The deceased was neither a income tax payee nor has filed any evidence before the Tribunal in order to show what was the actual income of the deceased from the job. I fail to understand how Davendra Kumar Saini, with whom the deceased had learned the TV repairing work for 7 years could know the actual income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000 per month. He has not given any evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased. Deepa Karwal, wife of the deceased, has stated that the shop in which the TV repairing work was being performed by the deceased was taken on rent, but she has also neither filed any receipt with regard to the rent of the shop in question nor knew who was the owner of the shop. She has also stated that she could not file any bill pertaining to the repair of TV. Therefore, on the basis of these evidence, I do not find any justification that the Tribunal could reach to its finding pertaining to the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500 per month. In fact there is no evidence available on record before the Tribunal which may suggest that the deceased was actually earning a sum of Rs. 4,500 per month from TV repair work.

The accident in this case occurred on 29.8.2003 and in the absence of any actual income of the deceased the notional income is to be taken into account and in the year 2003 the notional income of the deceased could be taken into account as Rs. 30,000 per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants thus comes to Rs. 20,000 per annum. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 32 years approximately. The Tribunal further fell in error in adopting the multiplier of ''17'' in this case, in view of the several judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, ; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, and The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs. Sripriya and Others, . Considering the age of the deceased as well as the view of the Supreme Court, the multiplier cannot be more than ''14'' in any manner in the instant case. After applying the multiplier of ''14'', the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,80,000 (14 x Rs. 20,000). The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the Tribunal under different heads shall remain intact. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 2,95,000 with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award.

As far as the apportionment of the award in favour of the claimants is concerned, the same shall be given, as under:

(i) Madhu Karwal (minor) d/o deceased Rs. 75,000, which shall be kept in the form of fixed deposit with some nationalised bank till she attains the age of majority.

(ii) Rani Devi and Rajendra Karwal (parents of the deceased) shall get Rs. 40,000 each out of the total awarded amount.

(iii) Deepa Karwal, wife of deceased shall get the rest of the amount.

The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.