Ram Chandra Kandu and Another vs Aditya Prasad and Others

Heard both sides.

The claimants who had filed the miscellaneous appeal are the appellants herein. They had challenged the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No. 1 of 1997/11 of 1997, wherein the Tribunal had awarded the claimants-appellants, the father and mother of one deceased Santosh Kumar, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) as compensation along with interest at 12% per annum thereon from the date of application till payment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal.

The deceased Santosh Kumar was aged about 22 years, when he died in an accident caused by a motor vehicle. At the relevant time, he was a student. The case of the claimants-appellants was that even though their son Santosh Kumar was a student, he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month from tuition and out of the said amount, the deceased was maintaining himself and also contributing to the maintenance of his parents. The Tribunal accepted that case and calculated the annual dependency at Rs. 12,000/-. The father of the deceased, in his deposition as witness in the claim case, admitted himself to be 54 years old and the Tribunal on that basis applied a multiplier of 8 and calculated Rs. 96,000/- towards loss of dependency plus Rs. 4,000/- for loss of estate. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was determined as payable. It did not make any deduction for lumpsum payment and did not take note of the prospect of Santosh Kumar getting married. The appeal was filed claiming that the compensation awarded was inadequate.

The learned Single Judge found that the approach made and the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal, was just and did not warrant interference in appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in applying only a multiplier of 8 and the calculation of annual dependency made by the Tribunal was low on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the relevant decision has been correctly applied by the Tribunal and the multiplier adopted considering the age of the father of the deceased for calculating the annual dependency was justified. On the materials it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in adopting 8 as multiplier. As, we have noticed, the Tribunal has not made a generous approach to the claim as regards the alleged earning of the deceased and had not made any deduction for lumpsum payment or the prospect of Santosh Kumar getting married. It has also awarded interest at 12% per annum. In that situation, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering with the Award of the Tribunal.

We, hence, find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.