Mandakani vs Abhay Singh

Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (''the Tribunal''), whereby, for death of one Dheeraj Murdia, Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,84,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing application for compensation (''the application''), i.e., 5.3.1992. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: The claimants--wife, children and parents of the deceased--filed the application, inter alia, with the averments that while travelling from Udaipur to Ajmer on 29.8.1991 at around 10.45 a.m., the vehicle in which the deceased along with his co-passengers was travelling met with an accident with a tanker bearing registration No. DGI 7608, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, which resulted in grievous injuries to the said Dheeraj Murdia to which he ultimately succumbed.

The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,98,000. A reply to the application was filed by the insurance company disputing the averments contained therein and disputing its liability as well.

The Tribunal framed four issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the tanker, Abhay Singh, and the insurance company was liable to make payment of the compensation.

While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal relying on the statements of AW 4 Mandakani, wife of the deceased, and AW 5 Pratap Singh, father of the deceased, came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged about 38 years and based on the income tax documents filed at Exhs. 4 to 14, assessed the loss of income at Rs. 8,000 per month; deducted Rs. 1,600 for personal expenses + Rs. 400 for conveyance expenses; applied multiplier of 12 and awarded Rs. 8,64,000 for loss of income, Rs. 15,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000 for conveyance expenses.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that compensation awarded is meagre, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as the deceased was an engineering graduate and was a bright young businessman involved in several ventures. On account of his untimely death at the age of 38 years, the business as being carried on by him has been severely affected inasmuch as one of the companies was required to be sold out by claimants and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income at Rs. 8,000 per month only. It was further submitted that the deduction of Rs. 400 for conveyance expenses has no basis as admittedly the deceased was working with several companies and, therefore, there was no question of his spending Rs. 400 personally for conveyance expenses. Submissions were also made regarding non-consideration of future prospects and low multiplier.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, , in support of the contentions.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the award of compensation is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances and based on the income tax returns of the deceased, the assessment has been made and as such the same does not call for any interference.

I have considered the rival submissions.

From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the deceased Dheeraj Murdia was an engineering graduate and was involved in several businesses and was in fact travelling in connection with his new business of setting up of a dealership of Telco vehicles. From the statement, it is also noticed that father of the deceased, Pratap Singh, was aged 65 years at the time of death of his son Dheeraj Murdia and the statement made by the claimants that subsequent to the death of the said Dheeraj Murdia, the claimants were required to sell certain businesses and were required to engage professionals to look after the business has not been controverted. However, the engaging of professionals for running the business cannot be attributed as a direct loss to the claimants as the said payment to the professionals would be business expenses only.

From the material available on record including the income tax returns/assessment orders, Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month, which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, looking to the age of the deceased, the way he was conducting his business and the consistent increase in income as reflected in the income tax documents (Exhs. 4 to 14), the claimants are entitled for grant of future prospects in the present case, which is assessed at 50 per cent.

Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal even if the age of the deceased is taken at 38 years is also on the lower side which should be 15 and looking to the number of claimants, i.e., 5 in number, the deduction at V4 appears to be reasonable.

Therefore, as compensation for loss of income, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,000 + Rs. 4,000 (for future prospects) = Rs. 12,000 - Rs. 3,000 (1/4 as personal expenses) = Rs. 9,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 16,20,000.

The award of compensation under other heads does not call for any interference, specially in view of the information by learned counsel for the parties that appellant No. 1, Mandakani, and appellant No. 4, Pratap Singh, have expired during the pendency of the appeal.

So far as the award of interest on the enhanced compensation is concerned, in view of the changed circumstances, in place of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing application; on the enhanced compensation, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing application, i.e., 5.3.1992. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be payable as under:

So far as the award of interest on the amount originally awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is maintained at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing application, i.e., 5.3.1992.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 16,40,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs. 8,84,000 as originally awarded by the Tribunal and at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 7,56,000 from the date of filing application, i.e., 5.3.1992. The amount of enhanced compensation along with interest shall be paid in terms of the directions contained hereinbefore within a period of three months by the insurance company.

No costs.