Jyoti Poddar and Others vs Goukaran and Others

A.K. Patnaik, C.J.—This is an appeal against the award dated 9th April, 1996 in Claim Case No. 70/94 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg.

The facts briefly are that Dulal Poddar was travelling in the scooter on 28th December, 1992 from Chhawani Police Station, Power House on Nandini Road, Bhilai at about 6.30 in the evening. A truck bearing registration No. M.B.K, 7110 came from the opposite direction, first hit another truck bearing registration No. M.P.T. 8859 and thereafter hit Dulal Poddar. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Dulal Poddar suffered injuries. He was brought to the hospital where he succumbed. On 29th December, 1992 appellant No. 1, his wife, appellants 2 and 3, his children and appellant No. 4 his mother, filed the aforesaid claims case before the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal determined the quantum of compensation to be payable on account of the accident at Rs. 3,60,000 (Rs. three lacs sixty thousand only) but held in the impugned award that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of Dula Poddar and accordingly dismissed the claim of the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.

Mr. Ghosh learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it would be clear from the evidence of Bablu Manjhi (AW 2) who was examined on behalf of the claimants that the truck M.B.K. 7110 first hit the standing truck and hit Dulal Poddar who was coming from the opposite direction on his left hand side. He further submitted that this will be clear from the First Information Report (Ext. P-1) in which Gokaran (AW 5) the driver of truck No. M.B.K. 7110 has himself stated that he first hit the standing truck M.P.T. 8859 and then hit the scooter which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of the accident the Scooter rider suffered injuries and for this reason he lodged the First Information Report (Ext. P-1) Mr. Ghosh further submitted that on this evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was on account of the fault of Dulal Poddar was factually incorrect.

Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, on the other hand submitted that it would be clear from the evidence of Gokaran (AW 5) as well as Ext. P-1 that Dulal Poddar instead of moving towards his left moved towards his right and as a result he was hit by the truck M.B.K. 7110 driven by Gokaran (AW 5).

We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Jayaswal, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. It is not in dispute that the truck M.P.T. 8859 was standing on the road and it appears from Ext. P-1 as well as the evidence of Gokaran (AW 5) the driver of the truck M.B.K. 7110 that the truck M.B.K. 7110 first hit the standing truck M.P.T. 8859 and thereafter hit the scooter being driven by Dulal Poddar. Hence, even if Dulal Poddar might have moved towards his right instead of left as has been contended by Mr. Jayaswal, such a movement on the part of Dulal Poddar was very natural. Once the truck M.B.K. 7110 hit the standing truck M.P.T. 8859, Dulal Poddar who was coming from the opposite direction of the road was bound to get disturbed, nervous and loose balance. The fact remains that the accident started on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck M.B.K. 7110 which first hit the truck M.P.T. 8859 and for such negligence, the owner of the truck M.B.K. 7110 as well as the insurer of the said truck was liable for compensation for the death of Dulal Poddar. The finding of the Tribunal therefore that the accident took place on account of the fault of Dulal a Poddar, the deceased himself, was incorrect and is set aside and it is held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck M.B.K. 7110.

Mr. Ghosh next submitted that the income of the deceased was Rs. 60,000/ (Rs. sixty thousand only) per year, which works out at Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand only) per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 (Rs. three thousand only) per month.

Mr. Jayaswal, on the other hand, submitted that it would be clear that the Tribunal has not taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 (three thousand only) per month but has worked out the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,000 (Rs. three thousand only) per month.

Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the deceased was aged about 42 years and as per the Second Schedule, the multiplier that was applicable was 15 whereas the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 10 only. Mr. Jayaswal however submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is correct and should not be interfered with by the Court.

It appears that the application of the appellants/claimants was u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly the Second Schedule was applicable for determining the compensation in this case. The loss of dependency works out at 6/8 because the family of the deceased comprised of himself, his mother, his wife and two minor children (2+2+2+1+1). If the income e of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 60,000 (Rs. sixty thousand only) per year which works out to Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five1 thousand only) per month, then the loss of dependency will work out to Rs. 5,000 x 6/8 : 3,750 (Rs. three thousand seven hundred fifty only) and not Rs. 3,000 (Rs. three thousand only). As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the multiplier that is applicable to the deceased who was aged 42 years at the time of the accident is 15. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,750 x 12 x 15 : 6,75,000 (Rs. six lacs seventy five thousand only).

To the aforesaid loss of dependency of Rs. 6,75,000 (Rs. six lacs seventy five thousand only), Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand only) is added towards loss of consortium for the wife and Rs. 4,000 (Rs. four thousand only) towards funeral 9 expenses and the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 6,84,000 (Rs. six lacs eighty four thousand only).

Since the accident took place on 21 st June, 1993 when the prevailing rate of interest was around 12%, the appellants would also be entitled to 12% interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,84,000 (Rs. six lacs eighty four thousand only) n calculated from 21st June, 1993 till its realisation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned award is set aside and appellants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,84,000 (Rs. six lacs eighty four thousand only) with 12% interest less the amount of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. twenty five thousand only) already paid to the appellants towards no fault liability by the respondent No. 3. The aforesaid amount will be deposited with the Tribunal within a period of three months from today and on such deposit being made the Tribunal will determine the amount that will be released and the amount that will be kept in fixed deposit in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court.