Chandulal Meghraj Upadhyay and Others vs Vithal Marotrao Shaktikar and Others

A.S. Chandurkar, J.—This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the said Act) seeks enhancement in the amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara.

In an accident that occurred on 24.06.1994 one Shyamsunder aged about 24 years who was the son of appellant no. 1 lost his life. The appellant No. 1 along with step mother of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Said Act. The compensation claimed was Rs. 15,80,000/- by treating the monthly net income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/-.

The claim was opposed by respondent no.3-Insurance Company by filing its written statement. It was denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month and that the claimants were entitled for the amount of compensation as claimed.

On behalf of the claimants the appellant no.1, a co-passenger as well as the Accountant of the deceased were examined. No evidence was led by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted compensation of Rs. 1,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% P.A. Hence this appeal.

Shri S.Y. Deopujari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in granting lesser compensation. It was submitted that the claimants had filed on record various documents including income tax returns of the deceased. He submitted that considering the age of the deceased higher multiplier ought to have been taken. Similarly the annual income of Rs. 24,000/- was taken on the lower side. He then submitted that Claims Tribunal was not justified in holding that the step mother was not entitled to claim any compensation. In that regard he placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another Vs. United India Insurance and Another etc., , for the purposes of seeking higher compensation. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. and Others, . It was, therefore, submitted that the claimants were entitled for higher amount of compensation.

Shri A.R. Godbole, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was rightly taken at Rs. 24,000/-. According to him the income tax returns had been filed after the death of Shyamsunder. The multiplier of 11 was rightly taken considering the facts of the case. According to him, though the Accountant was not cross examined there was nothing substantial in his examination-in-chief to support the case of the appellants. Therefore it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal was justified in granting the compensation at Rs. 1,76,000/-.

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and I have perused the records of the case. The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the appellants are entitled for higher amount of compensation?

To prove the age and income of the deceased, appellant no.1 examined himself vide Ex. 44. Various documents including the income tax returns, copies of profit and loss account, hire and purchase agreement for a mini truck purchased by deceased were placed on record. He further stated that monthly instalment of Rs. 13,250/- was being paid for the truck and after the death of his son the truck was sold out. In his cross-examination he stated that he was demanding Rs.2500/- to 3000/- per month. He admitted that the income tax was actually paid on 04.10.1994.

The Accountant of the deceased was examined vide Ex. 66. He referred to the profit and loss accounts at Exs. 67 to 69 pertaining to the deceased. This witness however was not cross examined by the Insurance Company.

According to the claimants, the annual income of the deceased was about Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/-. The income tax statements at Ex. 49 and 50 indicate taxable income of Rs. 29,000/- and 33,000/- respectively. Though it is clear from the record that income tax was actually paid on 04.10.1994, the total income mentioned therein can be taken as a guiding factor along with other material available on record. The statement of the claimant No. 1 that the deceased was paying instalment of the truck at Rs. 13,250/- per month is supported by ledger extract of the account of the deceased with State Bank of India. Moreover there is no cross examination on the statement of appellant no.1 that said instalments were being paid by the deceased. Similarly the profit and loss account of the deceased was also placed on record which indicates the income earned by him from grocery business. Considering the entire documents on record an amount of Rs. 35,000/- can be taken as annual income of the deceased.

The deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident and hence as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , 50% of the amount of annul income can be considered as loss of dependency. Said amount comes to Rs. 17,500/-. Similarly considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 17 can be taken. The loss of dependency accordingly comes to Rs. 2,97,500/-.

The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, has held that fair and reasonable compensation has to be granted under Section 166 of the said Act. Considering the age of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- can be taken into consideration for loss of love and affection. The observations of the Supreme Court in Montfort Brothers support the case of the appellants. For funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is found adequate. Similarly considering the age of the deceased and future prospects, total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- appears to be just and reasonable in the facts of the present case. It is, therefore held that claimants are entitled for amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation. The amount of interest payable on the amount of compensation would be at Rs. 8% P. A. from the date of filing the claim petition.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is partly modified on the aforesaid terms. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be paid by the respondents to the appellants within a period of three months from today.