Sandharani Saha and Ors vs General Manager, A.S.T.C and Others

D. Biswas, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act. 1988 has been preferred against the award dated 23.9.89, passed in M.A.C. case No. 18(K) 86 by which the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT in short), Kamrup at Guwahati awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant/Appellant on the death of Shri Sudhir Saha.

We have heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Counsel assisted Mr. P.K. Khataniar and Mr. M. Sarma for the Respondents.

Before we enter into scrutiny of the impugned award, die facts shorn of details may-be referred to on 7.10.85, Sudhir Saha was travelling from Guwahati to Khanpetia in a bus bearing No. ASX 2874 and on the way, at ChowKi Gate Railway Level crossing, it collided widi the 155 Dn Tinsukia Mail as a result of which Sudhir Saha died out of the injuries sustained by him besides death and injuries caused to others, Smti Sandhya Rani Saha, wife of the deceased initiated this claim petition on her behalf, on behalf of her minor children and the mother of the deceased claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 8,20,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs twety thousand) only.

It has been stated in the claim petition that the monthly income ofthe deceased was Rs. 2,500/-.

The learned Counsel for the appeallant controverted the award only on the ground that the learned Tribunal Committed an error in law in deducting one-third of the amount of compensation which he had woriced out on basis of tiie monthly dependency of the deceased assessed at Rs. 1500/-(Rupees fiften hundred only) and uiged for enhancement of the awud to the extent of one-third deducted. Shri B.K Jain; learned Counsel for the Appellants further contended diat this deduction of one-third of the amount is permissible under the note appended to tile schedule of die M.V. Act. 1988 only in case of an award assessed on the basic of annual income.

Shri P.C. Deka, learned Counsel for the die Respondents, however, contended that the mondily dependancy assessed by the learned Tribunal is on assumptions and pressumption and not based on evidence on record. According to him this amount is on the higher side and as such the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is more than what is permissible under the law. However, after take due note of the submissions and counter submissions made hy the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no cross appeal has been preferred by the Respondents damaging the quantum of award given by the Tribunal, this Court ex facie has no jurisdiction to review the decision airived at by the learned Tribunal in assessing tiie dependency. Therefore, this Court has to accept Rs. 1500/- as the monthly dependency of tiie deceased. The deceases was forty two years old on the date of the accident and, therefore, he multiplier of 15(fifteen) as is prescribed in the second scheduled to the M.V. Act. 1988 has been rightiy chosen as the multiplicand in this case. Calculating thus we can work-out an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- which we hold as just and proper compensaiton in this case. Another sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been given by the learned Tribunal for loss consortium, deprivation of love and affection, mental shock and pauii There being no cross appeal and no over Mdhehning materials to assail tiie decision of the leaned Tribunal this matter, we allow it to remain as it is. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only emerged as the total compesation payable to the clamants in this case.

Now the point which calls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal committed an error by deducting one-third from the aforesaid amount on account of uncertainties of life. Referring to the provisions embodied in tiie note appended to the second schedule of tiie M.V. Act, 1988, we find that this deducticm is permissible only when the com-pensation is assessed on the basis of the innual income of the deceased ana n otherwise. In our considered opinion, the deduction made by the learned Tribunal and hitherto chillenged by the Appellants cannot be sustained. The Appellants in our opinion are entitled to an award of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three likhs) only along with interest attherate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the application. The deduction of. one-third made by the learned Tribunal is obviously errorneous and contrary to the provisions of the law.

The above conclusion has been arrived at us on the basis of the provisions of the second Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988 and in view of tiie decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, to base all such computations taking into account the provisions in the second Schedule as guidelines.

In the result, we allow the appeal to tiie extent indicated above. The claimants/appelant are entitied to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum less the amount already paid by th Railways ai the ASTC at the ratios of 75% and 25%, respectively. Considering the circumstance of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.