Mst. Ramsobai and Others vs Sunil and Others

S.S. Jha, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of quantum of compensation. Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found contributory negligence and reduced the compensation by 50%. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the dependency was Rs. 500/- per month and has applied the multiplier of 12 and determined the compensation at Rs. 72,000/-. On account of contributory negligence compensation is reduced to Rs. 36,000/-. The mental agony is determined at Rs. 5,000/- to claimant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/-each to other claimants which comes to Rs. 11,000/- and by adding this Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 72,000/- the amount comes to Rs. 83,000/- and similarly for other damages loss of consortium of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant No. 1 and claimant Nos. 3,5 and 6 have been awarded Rs. 2,000/- each.

The accident took place on 14.10.1987. The claim petition was filed u/s 110 of Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for appellant submitted that the reason in awarding compensation is too vague and referred to the judgment in the case of Jyoti Kaul and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, , wherein it is held that multiplier method provided under 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is logically sound and well settled and other method should be applied only in exceptional cases. In this case the deceased died in a road accident in the year 1988 and considering the scope of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , wherein it is held that the multiplier method is logically sound and well settled. It was held that the principle of multiplier would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and looking to the facts of the case Tribunal has assigned good reasons for applying the multiplier of 15. This was in addition to taking into consideration that the predecessors of the'' deceased lived more than 80 years. High Court reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10 without taking into circumstances considered by the Tribunal and thus committed the error. Apex Court set aside the findings of the High Court only to the extent of the application of multiplier and uphold other findings including reduction of rate of interest and directed for application of multiplier of 15. In the aforesaid judgment age of the deceased was not mentioned. However, the High Court has taken a view that the deceased was likely to superannuate after 8 years, hence multiplier was reduced from 15 to 10. Thus, from this fact it appears that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, Counsel for appellant submitted that multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in this case. Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 12. Counsel for appellant then also referred to another judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Jyoti Kaul, judgment of this Court in which multiplier of 10 was applied. In this judgment at the time of death age of the deceased was 50 years. However, this judgment is modified by Apex Court in the judgment of Jyoti Kaul (supra).

In the present case age of the deceased is not mentioned in the judgment. In para 3 of the judgment it is stated that claimants have claimed that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of his death whereas in the return age is stated to be 55 years. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that in the postmortem report age of the deceased is mentioned as 55 years whereas claimants have claimed that the age of the decease as 40 to 45 years and Tribunal found that in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding age on the date of accident, the age of the deceased is more than 45 years and the average age is determined as 50 years in the judgment.

In the facts of the case it is alleged that the deceased was sitting in a truck and has jumped from the window of the truck on the road. Immediately after jumping over the road a scooter dashed against him which caused his death. Tribunal found this is a case of contributory negligence as deceased has jumped on the road which is a Highway. The accident took place on National Highway, Agra-Bombay Road. No error is committed by the Tribunal in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

However, as regards the quantum of compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded that the deceased was receiving Rs. 1,000/- per month towards salary and Rs. 15/- to 20/- per day for food and other purposes. Deceased was the truck driver and evidence regarding his income is of Ramsobai (P.W. 2) widow of the deceased. However, in cross-examination suggestion was given to the widow that her husband was receiving Rs. 600/- per month which was denied by her and the Tribunal held that the owner and the Insurance Company accepted the income of the deceased to Rs. 600/- per month. At the time of incidence deceased was 50 years of age and dependency have been determined at Rs. 500/- per month.

In para 14 of the award Tribunal has recorded that deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and was spending Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,100/- upon his family and was spending Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- upon himself. A.W. 3 Ramprakash has deposed that the deceased was spending around Rs. 400/- from his personal income and Claims Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 500/-. The approach of the Tribunal is wholly incorrect. A.W. 1 Ramsobai has categorically stated in her deposition that her husband was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and she was receiving Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,100/- per month for maintenance of family. The suggestion that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 600/- per month is denied by her. No other documents were produced to show that the dependency was less than Rs. 1,000/- per month. Ramprakash A.W. 3 is the son of the deceased. This witness has admitted that his father was spending around Rs. 400/- upon him. Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- which was paid to him daily for food was being spent by him. A.W. 4 Chandrabhan is a truck driver and he has seen the accident. He has deposed that deceased Soovalal was getting Rs. 1,000/- per month apart from daily allowances. There is no cross-examination on the question of salary and daily allowances.

Considering the facts of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the dependency is of Rs. 500/- is erroneous. The allowances which were received by the deceased i.e. Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- per day were being spent by him upon himself which is more than Rs. 1,100/- a month. Since the deposition of A.W. 2, Ramsobai that her husband used to give her Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,100/- per month has gone unrebutted.

In the said facts of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that dependency was Rs. 500/- per month is set aside and it is held that dependency was Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thus, dependency is assessed as Rs. 12,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of 15 the compensation is determined at Rs. 1,80,000/-.

In the light of the judgment of Jyoti Kaul (supra), since the age of the deceased was 50 years it will be safe to apply multiplier of 15 and on application of multiplier of 15 the dependency is determined as Rs. 1,80,000/-. Since accident has occurred on account of contributory negligence claimants will be entitled to receive Rs. 90,000/- towards compensation and apart from payment of compensation the claimants will also be entitled for the loss of consortium and mental agony and funeral expenses. Claimants will be entitled for funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000/- and loss of estate at Rs. 2,000/-. Claimant No. 1 shall also be entitled for loss of consortium at Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, claimants are entitled to Rs. 90,000/-+ Rs. 9,000/- = Rs. 99,000/- (ninety-nine thousand rupees only) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application. However, amount paid by the respondents shall be adjusted and proportionate interest shall also be adjusted from the date of amount deposited.

Appeal succeeds and is allowed without any orders as to costs.