AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 01.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 126/2010. As against the compensation of Rs. 12,10,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Jhammanlal Sahu by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14.05.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Jhammanlal Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.05.2010; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No. CG-17 D 0720; as the above offending vehicle Maruti Van on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Maruti Van has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality.
The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jhammanlal Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/- per annum and the claimants'' dependency at Rs. 24,000/- per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding only Rs. 4,000/- under other heads.
Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Van, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza.
Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
As learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 36,000/- per annum, and the claimants'' dependency at Rs. 24,000/- per annum, we have not examined these aspects of the matter.
Deceased Jhammanlal Sahu was shown to be 30 years of age in his postmortem report. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 yeaRs. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 in place of 12 in the present case. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation by applying the multiplier of 17.
By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs. 4,08,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Jhammanlal Sahu in the motor accident.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.
Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/- at Rs. 14,000/-.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 14,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/-.
Respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty-five thousand only) (Rs. 1,31,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 14,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.