Vikrampratap Singh and Others vs Rampal Singh and Another

A.M. Sapre, J.—This is an appeal filed by the claimants u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 28.7.2005 passed by the learned Eleventh Addl. Member, M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 41 of 2003. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 1,24,500 for the death of one Sunita. This appeal is filed by claimants for enhancement as according to claimants, the compensation awarded to claimants by the Tribunal is on lower side and it should be enhanced in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, if so, to what extent and under what head(s)?

Heard Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate and Mrs. Sudha Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent insurance company.

It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle or claimant or who is liable to pay compensation, etc. and whether offending vehicle is insured or not? It is for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal and secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants'' favour and against the respondents are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/driver or insurance company either by way of a cross appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our order by detailing facts on all these issues which are not really necessary.

It is a death case rather tragic and most unfortunate one. On 16.12.2002, the father, mother and one son while going in vehicle met with a typical type of vehicular accident and died on the spot leaving behind one minor son-Vikrampratap Singh, aged 14 years as sole surviving member of family. It is this tragic incident which took the lives of three members of one family, i.e., father, mother and one son (brother of the claimant No. 1), gave rise to filing of 3 claim petitions by the same claimants (appellants herein), i.e., the sole surviving minor son-Vikrampratap Singh through his grandfather (father of the deceased), claiming compensation for loss of 3 of his family members, i.e., his father, mother and a brother. In all three claim petitions, as mentioned supra were filed by the same (one) the claimant against same opposite parties, i.e., driver, owner and the insurer of offending vehicle, which was involved in the accident and due to which 3 persons died. The respondents contested the case. Parties adduced common evidence because all the three claim petitions were clubbed together for their disposal. By common impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed all the three claim petitions filed by claimants (appellants herein) and accordingly awarded compensation as follows:

(1) Claim Case No. 41 of 2003.

For the death of mother-Rs. 1,24,500

(2) Claim Case No. 42 of 2003.

For the death of father-Rs. 12,15,400

(3) Claim Case No. 43 of 2003.

For the death of brother-Rs. 57,000

So far as this appeal is concerned, it arises out of a Claim Case No. 41 of 2003, i.e., claim in relation to the death of mother of claimant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded by Tribunal in the case of his deceased mother Sunita is on lower side, i.e., Rs. 1,24,500 and hence it deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. So this appeal is filed confining to the claim arising out of the case of mother. So far as claim of other two, i.e., father and brother are concerned, the same is not under challenge. It is accepted by the claimants being reasonable and proper. In this view of the matter, we are not called upon to examine the correctness of two other claim cases relating to father and brother decided by impugned award in this appeal.

So the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,24,500 to claimant for the death of his mother Sunita and if not whether any case for enhancement is made out and, if so, to what extent?

We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the question of deceased''s income which she used to earn. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that a case for interference in deceased''s income is made out. The Tribunal on evidence held that deceased''s yearly income is Rs. 30,000 and accordingly deducted 3/4th for calculating dependency for determining the compensation payable to claimant. In our view, it was not proper as is clear from documentary evidence adduced by the claimant for proving the income of deceased Sunita. It is not in dispute that deceased Sunita, aged around 40 years was an income tax assessee. She had disclosed her yearly income from all known sources in her return. She was a scientist and used to teach. She also used to do tuition. Exh. P81 is the copy of her income tax return for the assessment year 2000-2001. In this return she had disclosed her yearly income at Rs. 52,500. We consider it proper to take Rs. 50,000 as her yearly income on safer side. Indeed, there appears no justifiable reason to reduce her yearly income from less than Rs. 50,000 because the same is disclosed by the deceased herself in her income tax return. Deducting 1/3rd in place 2/3rd we get a sum of Rs. 33,000 for calculating dependency. Applying the multiplier of 15, we get a sum of Rs. 5,95,000. In addition, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards other statutory heads such as funeral expenses, loss to the estate, love and affection, etc., thereby making a total of Rs. 6,20,000.

In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,20,000 by way of compensation for the death of Sunita.

The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation.

Learned Counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation.

In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. No costs.