AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The claimants are the Appellants. They are the parents of a deceased person who was aged about 24 years at the time of his death. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 8/12/1998. He was an inpatient for 9 days. He succumbed to his injuries while he was undergoing treatment. Against a total claim of Rs. 5,48,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 3,09,800/- as per the details shown below along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum:
1.
Compensation for loss of dependency (2250 x 12 x 13 x 2/3)
-
Rs. 2,34,000/-
2.
Transport to hospital
-
Rs. 1,000/-
3.
Extra nourishment
-
Rs. 1,000/-
4.
Damage to clothing
-
Rs. 500/-
5.
Pain and suffering
-
Rs. 15,000/-
6.
Funeral expenses
-
Rs. 5,000/-
7.
Medical expenses
-
Rs. 53,300/-
Total
-
Rs. 3,09,800/-
The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. The claim is u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Called upon to be specific, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellants want to assail the quantum of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of dependency and pain and suffering. The deceased was a driver, it is submitted. No. better evidence is available. The common case is that he was riding a motorcycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs. 2,250/- as the monthly wages. However, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal assumed that only 1/3rd would have been spent for personal expenses and the entire 2/3rd will be available as contribution to the parents. The Tribunal took into account the age of the younger of the two parents (50 years) and reckoned 13 as the multiplier.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the monthly income should have been reckoned at a higher figure. Rs. 2,250/- in 1998 is too low a monthly income for a skilled driver. The learned Counsel for the insurance company, on the contrary, contends that assuming that there is an error in reckoning the total monthly income, that error is nullified and reversed by the calculation of the Tribunal that 2/3rd amount would have been available for the entire period of 13 years reckoned as multiplier. Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, is relied on to contend that for a bachelor it would be reasonable to assume that 50% would be his contribution to his parents. The learned Counsel for the insurance company further points out that the inevitable intervening circumstance of marriage of the deceased has not been reckoned by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation. The Tribunal considered the same multiplier to be available for the entire period of 13 years.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants further contends that under the head of pain and suffering, only Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded and according to the learned Counsel, this is inadequate considering the fact that the deceased was an inpatient for 9 days and had succumbed to the injuries only after such treatment as inpatient. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are not persuaded to agree that the computation of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on any head suffers from any such vice warranting appellate interference invoking the jurisdiction u/s 173 of the M.V. Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the insurance company, Rs. 3,500/-is the monthly income claimed. No. satisfactory evidence has been adduced to show the employment of the victim. His driving licence has not been produced to authentically convey to the court that he was actually working as a paid driver. Even if Rs. 3,000/- were reckoned as his monthly income, after making provision for his personal expenses, the compensation awarded cannot be held to be inadequate, contends the counsel. We find force in the contention. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any head demands or warrants interference. Notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was an inpatient for 9 days, we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering does not warrant interference. The challenge fails.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.