Smt. Girja Devi and Others vs Sh. Narender Singh and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 21.11.2005, wherein the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum.

The brief facts of the case inter alia are that on 2.9.2003 at about 2.30 A.M. the deceased Shri Arup Kumar was sleeping on the foot path near tempo stand, Raja Garden, when the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. HR-15-1132 driven by the driver of the offending vehicle rashly and negligently ran over the deceased and other persons who were sleeping on the pavement, resulting into his death.

Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not applied the appropriate multiplier as laid down under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel further contends that even lower rate of interest i.e., 6% has been granted by the Tribunal.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The deceased was 30 years of age at the time of his death and he is survived by his wife, mother and three children. Considering the age of the widow and three children and the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier under the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is 18. No reasons have been advanced by the Tribunal to deviate from the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is no more res integra that in the normal course Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act should be followed and deviation therefrom shall be made only in peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter. In this regard, the Hon''ble Apex Court has in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India and Another, observed as under:

It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case.

I, therefore, modify the impugned award dated 21.11.2005 with regard to the multiplier. The same should be taken as ''18'' in place of ''16''. Perusal of the award also shows that lower rate of interest i.e.,6% has been awarded by the Tribunal. The same is also modified from 6% p.a. to 7.5%p.a.

The differential amount shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant along with up to date interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

With these directions, appeal stands disposed of.