AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Gambhir, J.—The present appeal arises out of the award dated 2.1.1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,05,240/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.
The brief conspectus of the facts are as follows:
On 29th December, 1994 Vijay Kumar Gupta along with his wife and two sons, Anil Kukreja, his wife Smt. Rashi Kukreja, Rakesh Jain and his daughter etc. were coming from the side of Goa and going to Bombay in maruti van bearing No. GA-01-C- 4122. This van was being driven by George Parera Kados, respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and without caring for the traffic rules. The moment this van reached near a place at Bridge situated at village Mhwale on the Bombay-Goa Highway, the driver (respondent No. 1) could not control the van with the result it collided with the side stone wall of the bridge and jumped from the top of the bridge and collided with the stones lying 30 feet below the bridge. As a result of this accident, Vijay Kumar Gupta sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The other occupants of the van including Poonam Gupta, petitioner No. 1 received injuries. It is alleged by the appellant that this accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver/R1 who was responsible for the accident. Hence the petition for Rs. 30,00,000/- claim was moved by the Learned Tribunal on account of the death of Vijay Kumar Gupta and for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by Smt. Poonam Gupta, wife of the deceased. Initially two separate petitions under separate registration numbers were filed against the driver and owner respectively of the van but later on they both were consolidated by the learned Tribunal. Since the offending van was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., it was also made the party/respondent in the petitions. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the petitions and were proceeded with ex-parte. The United India Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle was insured with it at the time of the accident but denied their responsibility to pay compensation.
The claim petition was filed on 27.11.1995 and an award was passed on 2.1.1999 by the Learned Tribunal. Aggrieved with the said award enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.
Sh. Neeraj Sharma, counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased after considering future prospects at Rs. 17,500/- per month. The counsel submitted that the tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 14 or 13 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 36 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 20-30 had he not met with the accident. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants.
Per Contra Mr. S.S. Panwar, counsel for respondent insurance company submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned award. Counsel further contended that award passed by Tribunal is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and no fault can be found with the same.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As regards the income of the deceased, the case of the appellants is that the deceased was doing his own business in the name and style of M/s Viya Stationary Mart and was having a monthly income of Rs. 17,500/- p.m. PW1 Mrs. Poona Gupta deposed that the deceased used to earn about Rs. 20,000/- p.m. from his stationary business and to prove the same brought on record the original assessment order Ex PW 1/1 and also tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94; 1994-95 and 1995 to 1996. The Tribunal after considering these documents assessed income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and further deducted Rs. 1,000/- p.m. towards income tax. I do not feel that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m.
Therefore, no interference is made in relation to income of the deceased by this Court.
As regards the future prospects I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record to award future prospects. The income tax returns of the year 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 clearly show steady rise in the income of the deceased. Therefore, the tribunal committed error in not granting future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the tribunal has committed error. This case pertains to the year December, 1994 and at that time II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was already brought on the statute book. In the facts of the present case I am of the view that after looking at the age of the claimants and the deceased the multiplier of 16 should have been applied as per the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case the multiplier of 16 shall be applicable.
On the contention regarding that the tribunal has erred in not granting adequate compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate, whereas, no compensation has been granted towards loss of consortium and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. In this regard compensation towards loss of love and affection is awarded at Rs. 40,000/- compensation towards funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- and compensation towards loss of estate is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- Further, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 25,000/- for transportation of dead body of the deceased to Delhi from Bombay.
On the basis of the discussion, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7,500/- after doubling Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and after taking the mean of them. After making 1/3rd deductions the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,000/- and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 60,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 16 it comes to Rs. 9,60,000/- Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,60,000/-. After considering Rs. 1,35,000/- which is granted towards non-pecuniary damages, the total compensation comes out as Rs. 10,95,000/-.
In view of the above discussion, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 10,95,000/- from Rs. 5,05,240/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and the same should be paid to the appellants by the respondent insurance company in the same proportion as awarded by the Tribunal.
With the above directions, the present appeal is disposed of.