Sheela Devi and Others vs Vinod Kumari and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the Appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 92-S/2 of 2002 decided on 1.8.2003 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,68,000/- in favour of the claimants.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Ram Raji Paswan who died in an accident on 21.6.2002 at about 8.A.M. while he was working in front of a shop at Kunihar. It was alleged that a tanker bearing registration No. PB-11-E-4955 being driven by Respondent No. 2 came at a high speed and struck against the deceased who was crushed. A case was registered. The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased being his widow, minor children and parents of the deceased, who filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 10.00 lacs. Respondent No. 3 contested the petition and alleged that Respondent No. 2 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Other Respondents simply denied the allegations. Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and on conclusion a sum of Rs. 3,68,000/- was awarded as compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present claim petition for enhancement of the compensation.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

The only point worth consideration is as to whether the Appellants have been awarded adequate compensation by assessing the income of the deceased. It has come up in evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 150/- per day while working as a mason and Rs. 200/- per day from overtime. The learned trial Court has observed that there is no rebuttal to this effect but it still assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. However, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 150/- per day (Rs. 4,500/- per month), after deducting 1/3rd from his monthly income for his personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3000/- and thus the annual loss comes to Rs. 36,000/-.

Coming to the age of the deceased. He was 28 years of age and a multiplier of 15 was applied which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 ACJ 1298. In that case, after referring to the earlier decisions, it was concluded in para 21 that the multiplier should be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased and in case of the age is in between 26 to 30 years, the multiplier of 17 was held to be appropriate. Accordingly, taking the annual loss of Rs. 3000x12= Rs. 36,000/- and applying the multiplier of 17 the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,12,000/-.

It has been pointed out that the learned Tribunal has not granted the adequate amount for funeral expenses and loss of consortium and a sum of Rs. 5000/- only was granted on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 3000/- as conventional sum.

Applying the above decision of Sarla Verma (supra) to the present case, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 5000/- on account of loss of estate, Rs. 5000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the widow as loss of consortium. This amount shall be added to the total compensation payable to the claimants. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,32,000/-. The amount shall be payable as under:

Petitioner No. 1 will be paid Rs. 2,32,000/-. Rs. 4,00,000/- to be divided equally amongst Petitioners No. 2 to 6 alongwith proportionate interest.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed along with costs and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,32,000/-. The claimants are entitled to lawyers fee assessed at Rs. 3500/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition.