Sherwani and Others vs Jagdish and Others

Dipak Misra, J.—Appellants-claimants thereinafter referred to as ''the claimants'') initiated an action u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas for grant of compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 for the death of Istakar, a driver in Public Works Department, who died in an accident caused due to dashing of the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 5305.

It was contended before the Tribunal that his monthly salary was Rs. 8,142 and he had left behind two wives and six children. As one of the daughters was given in marriage she was not brought on record as a respondent. It was put forth that his monthly contribution to the family was considerably high as he maintained the family with immense love, care and affection. He was aged 52 years and due to his untimely death immense loss had been caused for which the compensation was sought.

The claim put forth by the claimants was resisted by the insurer on the ground that there had been breach of terms and conditions of policy; that the claim was quite exorbitant and that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner.

The Tribunal on the basis of material brought on record came to hold that the deceased had met with accidental death; that there had been no violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the take-home salary of the appellant was Rs. 6,541 per month and thereby the yearly income was Rs. 78,492; that the yearly contribution to the family was Rs. 52,328; that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,89,108 which included loss of consortium, loss to estate, funeral expenses and medical expenses; that the second wife and her children were entitled to get Rs. 3,59,108 and the first wife and her children were entitled to Rs. 2,30,000, and further that interest accruable at the rate of 6 per cent would go to second wife as she was the mother-guardian of two minor children.

We have heard Mr. R.D. Bapat, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Mr. S.S. Swarnakar, learned Counsel for the insurer respondent No. 3 and Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, be it noted the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the first wife and her children.

Though many a contention was initially advanced but eventually Mr. Bapat restricted his arguments to one aspect, namely, the Tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased inasmuch as he was under the circumstances, required to maintain two wives and five children.

Mr. Neema supported the aforesaid stand. However, he contended the apportionment of amount and benefit of interest that has been exclusively conferred on the second wife are not correct.

Mr. Pradeep Gupta and Mr. S.S. Swarnakar, appearing for the insurer has submitted that Claims Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency and there is no warrant of any interference. As far as interest component is concerned, learned Counsel for the insurer has submitted that it is the discretion of the court and depends upon the obtaining factual matrix.

On a perusal of the award and the material brought on record, it is perceivable that 73rd of the income has been excluded on the head of personal expenses and 2/3rd has been taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the amount of contribution.

Mr. R.D. Bapat and Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel submit that if unit system is adopted the dependency will go quite high. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the insurance company submits that in a case of this nature, unit system need not be applied but the simple method of exclusion of 1/3rd towards personal expenses should be accepted as correct. From the factual scenario projected it is evincible that the deceased had a large family to look after. Under the circumstances, he would have been required to spend more on the family and less on himself. Thus, we are inclined to think that he would be spending 1/4th on himself and contributing the balance to the family. Therefore, the yearly contribution that has been computed by the Tribunal has to be modified and on such modification the same would come to Rs. 58,869. We make it a round figure of Rs. 58,870. The multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied and hence, we apply the same. The compensation, thus on this score, would come to Rs. 58,870 x 11 = Rs. 6,47,560. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 13,500 on other heads. We affirm the same. Hence, in toto, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,60,860. Out of the differential amount 60 per cent shall go to the second wife and her children and 40 per cent shall go to the first wife and her children, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal. The differential amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of application before the Tribunal till date of payment.

It is worthy to note that the Tribunal has directed that entire interest component shall be given to the second wife. We are of the opinion that as there had been appropriate apportionment with regard to the main part of compensation, the interest part also should be apportioned on pro rata basis. Hence, we direct that 60 per cent interest shall be given to the second wife and her children and 40 per cent shall be given to the first wife and her children. If the second wife has already been given the entire interest as per the direction of the Tribunal the same shall be computed and after determining the modified component as fixed by us shall be deducted from the enhanced differential sum and be disbursed accordingly.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.