Nirbhai Singh vs Satya Devi

N.K. Kapoor, J.—The unsuccessful Appellant - the owner of the tractor trolly has preferred this appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.1988, thus, affirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 6.2.1984.

Respondents-the claimants being heirs of Dr. M.L. Bansal who died on account of accident between his scooter and the tractor trolley bearing No. PNL 5644 filed a claim petition. It was stated in the claim petition that Dr. M.L. Bansal lost his life on account of rash and negligent driving by Nirbhai Singh, who was driving tractor trolley, which hit the scooter of Dr. Bansal. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed regarding status of the claimants, accident between tractor trolley and the scooter and death of Dr. Bansal, amount of compensation to be paid and in what proportion. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,95,840/ -.

Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Claims Tribunal present Appellants preferred the appeal whereas Respondents filed cross-objections. Appeal and Cross-objections were taken up together and decided by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment on 14.10.1988. While evaluating the amount to be paid to the claimants as well as the multiplier, which was to be applied to determine the amount, the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. The State of Assam and Ors. 1987 (1) 91 PLR 646 applied a multiplier of 20 and, thus, determined the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 3,12,000/ -. It was further ordered that a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - be paid to Satya Devi, mother of the deceased, Rs. 30,000/ - to Mrs. Darshan Bansal, widow and a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/ - each to two minor dependents, Besides, the Court Awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the amount, The Court further held that besides Nirbhai Singh, who was driving the tractor trolley in a rash and negligent manner, Sarvshri Ranjit Singh and Amar Singh, who are owners of tractor trolley too were held to be liable to pay the amount of compensation, Other two Respondents, namely, Lal Singh and Nahar Singh were not held liable to pay any amount.

The present appeal has been preferred by Nirbhai Singh, Ranjit Singh and Amar Singh. Almost identical pleas have been advanced by the counsel which did not find favour with the learned Single Judge or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence has come to the conclusion that Dr. Bansal died on account of rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the tractor trolley, which hit the scooter thereby causing the death of Dr. Bansal. Learned Single Judge too has affirmed this finding. This finding being based on appreciation of evidence and otherwise too not vitiated calls for no interference at this stage.

Counsel for the Appellants argued that the multiplier of 16 is the norm and there being no exceptional circumstances the learned Single Judge ought not to have applied a multiplier of 20. According to the counsel, in fact the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal right applied a multiplier of 16.

The learned Single Judge while applying a multiplier of 20 has sought support from the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotsna Dev's case (supra) in which the multiplier of 25 was awarded. However, the Court made a deduction of 1/5th on account of uncertainties of life. Precisely for this reason, the learned Single Judge applied multiplier of 20. As regards the dependency the learned Single Judge imposed a cut of 1/3rd from his monthly income of Rs. 2,040/ - and so considered a sum of Rs. 1,300/ - as dependency of the claimants. We find no infirmity in this approach of the learned Single Judge. Amount so calculated comes to Rs. 3,12,000/ -.

While applying the multiplier it has to be kept in view the age of the deceased. Dr. Bansal is stated to be aged about 30/32 years. He was a government employee drawing a salary of Rs. 2,040/ - per month. Once can infer that during course of his employment he would have risen high" in his status and salary. The learned Single Judge while applying a multiplier of 20 has kept in view the age of the deceased, the age of the claimants and other such attending circumstances. We find no infirmity in the approach of the learned Single Judge in this regard.

No other point has been pressed. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

No order as to costs.