Baljit Verma and Others vs Madan Lal and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, dated 13.6.1986, who, on a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles-Act filed by Baljit Verma and her 3 minor children, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- with 12 percent interest for the death of S.N. Verma, a practising advocate, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him while travelling in Matador No. UTI 7848 on 10.5.1984. _ The Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 3,000/- for medical expenses.

Being dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The award of the Tribunal had been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal had erred in applying different multipliers and it should have adopted a unified multiplier in the case of all the claimants.

The other plea is that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly calculated. The Counsel also stressed that the Tribunal should have awarded a higher rate of interest.

Mr. Pardeep Bedi, appearing for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, contends that there is no error in the award of the Tribunal. As such no interference in the award is called for.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am convinced that there is scope for enhancement of compensation. The proposition of law is well settled that no hard and fast rule can be applied as to what would be the suitable multiplierin a particular case. In the case of professional men a multiplier of 20 can always be given. In the case in hand, it was proved on record that the deceased % was 42 years old at the time of his death aad was a practising Lawyer. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, I consider it a fit case in which a multiplier of 20 can be applied.

It has also been proved on record that the deceased was an Income Tax assessee. As such, the annual income of the deceased has been rightly calculated at Rs. 24,000/-. The deceased out of his income must have been spending Rs.500/- per month on himself and the remaining Rs. 1,500/- on the maintenance of his family. In this manner, the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 1,500/- x 12).

From the perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the Tribunal had assessed equal dependency of the claimants while applying different multipliers incase of all the claimants. I find no rationale in the approach of the Tribunal in applying different multipliers for the reasons that if all the claimants were equally dependent on the deceased, then they ought to have been held entitled to a uniform multiplier and further to share the amount of compensation proportionately. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 20. Applying the same, the total compensation to which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 3,60,000/-.

In Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash 1991 ACJ 3 (SC), interest was allowed on the compensation at the rate of 15 percent. By following the ratio in Rukmani Devi''s case (supra), I allow interest at the rate of 15 percent from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

Out of the total compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- the share of each of the claimants would be as under:

Baljit Verma widow Rs. 1,50,000/ Mamta, claimant No. 2 (minor) Rs. 70,000/- Manoj Verma, claimant No. 3 (minor) Rs. 70,000/- Vikas Verma, claimant No. 4 (minor) Rs. 70,0007- The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The amount of compensation falling to the shares of the minors shall be deposited in the FDRs to be drawn by them on attaining the age of majority. The compensation already awarded shall be adjusted in the compensation awarded by this Court. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 3,000/- each as expenses on account of funeral and medicines, as already awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal is allowed with costs to the extent as indicated above. Costs Rs. 2,000/-.