Parmanand Dubey and Anr vs Manoj and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

1). This is claimants appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, district Durg (for short the Tribunal) vide award dated 27.10.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 29/2006. As against the compensation of Rs. 10,48,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate husband and son of deceased Laxmi Dubey, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 08.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 57,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

2) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Laxmi Dubey died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 08.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No C.G. 09 - ZA/2013; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

3) The Tribunal without assessing the income of the deceased and claimants'' dependency; awarded lump-sum of Rs. 57,000/- as compensation inclusive of Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium to the husband and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 57,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

4) Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not computing the compensation in the prescribed manner of first assessing tie income of the deceased and claimants'' dependency and then by multiplying the dependency with the appropriate multiplier and in awarding lump-sum of Rs. 57,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7) The claimants pleaded that deceased Laxmi Dubey used to earn Rs. 60 - 70/- per day by stitching clothes. It is true that the claimants could not lead any reliable evidence about the occupation of the deceased before the Tribunal.

8) Be that as it may, the fact remains that deceased Laxmi Dubey being aged about 40 years could have easily earned Rs. 50-60/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the village. We, therefore, assess her income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- per annum for the purposes of computation of compensation in the case.

9) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs. 12,000/- per annum.

10) Considering that claimant No. 1 Parmanand Dubey, the husband of deceased Laxmi Dubey was shown to be 43 years of age on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years.

11) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs. 1,68,000/- The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,83,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Laxmi Dudey in the motor accident.

12) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,26,000/- at Rs. 14,000/-.

14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 57,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,83,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 14,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 126,000/-.

15) Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rs 1,26,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 14,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,26,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

16) Respondent No. 3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus has also filed cross-objections in this appeal on the following grounds:

2.1 That, because in this case filed under section-166 MV Act, no eye witness could be examined by the claimant, to prove the negligency as per requirement of the provision, hence also appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2.2 That, because in para-9 of award there is finding of the tribunal that claimants were not dependent on deceased Laxmi Bai, hence also insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2.3 Hence, due to order of the tribunal, paid compensation may be order to refund, to the respondent No. 3 insurance company.

17) It is apparent from the above quoted grounds taken by the Insurance Company in their cross-objections that the challenge is to finding of the negligence recorded by the Tribunal and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, during the course of hearing, frankly conceded that the Insurance Company neither sought any permission before the Tribunal u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for contesting the claim on all available defenses nor such permission was ever granted by the Tribunal.

18) In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others, , the insurer of the offending vehicle in the absence of permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and/or the findings of the negligence recorded by the Tribunal.

19) In this view of the matter, the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.