Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Others vs Premwati Devi & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Both these appeals, under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, have been directed against the judgment and award dated 08.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/1st F.T.C. Haldwani in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 27 of 2011 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,35,000/- to the claimants along with 7% simple interest from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of realization.

Brief facts, of the case, are that on 13.11.2010 Sumit (deceased) along with his friend was traveling in Roadways Bus, bearing registration no. UA07-T/0403 from Ranikhet to Haldwani. The driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, due to which bus fell down in the gorge. In such accident, Sumit sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted at Government Hospital, Ranikhet. FIR was lodged by one Dev Singh Mehra in this regard. Brother of the deceased also lodged FIR on 14.11.2010 at P.S. Haldwani. It is alleged in the claim petition that deceased was student of B.Sc. final year, had given coaching to the students of the high school and intermediate and earned Rs. 7,500/- per month from said coaching. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 30,80,000/-.

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation filed its written statement. They admitted the occurrence of the accident and stated that driver of the bus was driving the bus carefully. It is further stated that when the bus reached at Bajina, the driver turn the vehicle, all of sudden herd of cattle came on the road and in order to save them the driver turn the vehicle right side and lost its control due to which the bus fell down in the gorge. It is further stated that the incident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus rather in order to save the herd of cattle the incident took place. It is further stated that Uttarakhand Transport Corporation paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as interim grant to the claimants. At the time of the incident, the driver of the bus was having valid driving license.

On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(i)         Whether on 13.11.2010 at about 4:15 p.m., when Sumit Kumar was traveling in roadways bus, bearing registration no. UA07-T/0403 then at Ranikhet Road near Bajina the bus fell in the gorge due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in which Sumit Kumar sustained serious injures and died on the sport?

(ii)        Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, if yes then how much and from whom?

An additional issue was framed by the Tribunal on 27.08.2011 to the following effect:

(iii)       Whether the alleged incident was not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus rather same was happened in order to save the herd of the cattle which came from the left side?

Claimants filed documentary evidence which includes copy of post mortem report, copy of FIR, death certificate, receipt in regard to the funeral, educational certificates of the deceased etc.. Smt. Premwati Devi was examined as P.W.1 and copy of the statement of Rajan Kumar @ Raju (P.W.2/ witness of the incident) was filed.

The learned Tribunal vide Award dated 05.06.2012 granted compensation of Rs. 4,35,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. to the Appellant claimant. The compensation was awarded under the following heads :-

(i)         The notional income of the deceased was assessed @ Rs. 5,000/- p.m.;

(ii)        Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was made from the notional income of the deceased, since he was a bachelor;

(iii)       The learned Tribunal applied the Multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased;

(iv)       Rs. 10,000/ was awarded towards funeral expenses;

(v)        Rs. 5,000/ was awarded towards loss of estate.

A.O. No. 378 of 2012 has been filed by the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation whereof AO No.455 of 2012 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the claim.

Learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation would submit that the deceased was not earning any income, as he was the student of B.Sc. Final Year. He would further submit that accident was occurred way back in the year 2010 and the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 5000/- per month. He would also submit that the multiplier of 14, as adopted by the learned Tribunal is also on the higher side.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that deceased was the student of B.Sc. Final Year. He was giving coaching to the student of class 10th and 12th and earned Rs. 7,500/- per month from the same. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 14 at the age of the mother of the deceased rather multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied at the age of the deceased.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

Claimant has pleaded that her son (deceased) used to give tuition to the students of class 10th and 12th and earned Rs. 7,500/- per month but no evidence has been adduced to prove the income of the deceased. Deceased himself was the student of B.Sc. Final Year, and used to give tuition to the students, thus, in case, he could alive, even after not getting a job, he would earn about Rs. 5,000/- per month from tuition. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the deceased @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. Deceased was bachelor so he would have spent 50% towards personal expenses. Thus, the annual dependency is held as Rs. 30,000/-.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied on the basis of the age of the deceased, as per the table set out in the judgment of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding the future prospects. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Insurance Company inter alia submitted that the Courts below were not justified in applying the Multiplier of 14 as per the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The issue with respect to whether the Multiplier to be applied in the case of a bachelor, should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased, or the age of the mother, is no longer res integra. There are a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be applied on the basis on the age of the deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. Thus, the Tribunal has committed illegality in applying multiplier of 14 at the age of the mother of the deceased rather multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied, and at the age of the deceased.

In view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi case reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 there should be 40% increase in the salary of the deceased, as the deceased was self employed and also entitled to get funeral expenses of Rs. 15000, and loss of estate of Rs. 15000/-.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation and damages is being reassessed as follows:-

Sl. No.

Heads

Calculation (amount in rupess)

1.

Total Income (5000x12 x 50%)

Rs. 30,000/-

2.

Future Prospects (40% of the income)

Rs. 12,000

3.

Loss of dependency (30,000 + 12,000 X 18)

Rs. 7,56,000/-

3.

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

4.

Loss of Estate

Rs. 15,000

5.

Total (loss of dependency + Funeral expenses +loss of estate)

Rs. 7,86,000/-

The claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation, as calculated above. It has come on the record that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation to the claimant towards ex-gratia amount, however, the learned Tribunal has directed to deduct the same from the compensation awarded. The same ought not to be deducted from the compensation awarded.

In view of the above forgoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 8.06.2012 is modified to the extent that the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation shall pay an amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- (7,86,000+50,000) as amount of compensation to the claimant with 7% interest. If any amount has been paid by the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation pursuant to the judgment and award dated 08.06.2012 the same shall be adjusted.

Let statutory deposit and lower court record be sent back to the tribunal concerned.