AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Assailing the award dated 30.01.2015 passed by Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 143/2010 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
As the incident occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle (Truck bearing registration No. MP06-HC-0401), liability to pay the compensation has been accepted jointly and severally recording the findings in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal and none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner or insurance company by filing the cross-appeal or the cross-objection, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed and the arguments in detail have been considered in succeeding paragraphs.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income Rs.42000/- per annum, whereas from the statement given by Ram Naresh Sikarwar (AW-4), who was the employer of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was working as driver and was getting salary of Rs.6000/- per month, therefore, his income should be assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month being skilled labour. It has been further submitted that the amount on other conventional heads is also inadequate which should be enhanced. It is also submitted that at the time of death of the deceased he was 22 years of age and as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], no amount under the head of future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of 11. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and, therefore, in the light of catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in place of multiplier of 11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Mahaboob Bee vs. Union of India represented by General Manager, South Central Railway [2003 ACJ 712]; Ibrahim vs. Raju and others [2011 ACJ 2845]; Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others [2013 ACJ 1403]; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Poongavanam and others [2013 ACJ 2763]; Surendra Singh and another vs. Vijay Singh and another [2019 ACJ 329]; Ch. Maruthi vs. Porandla Susheela and others [2019 ACJ 355]; Ramla and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others [2019 ACJ 559]; United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. P. Sivakami and others [2019 ACJ 912]; and, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. R. Nagaraj and another [2019 ACJ 923]. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal should be enhanced.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the deceased, who died at the age of 22 years, was unmarried, despite the Tribunal has determined the dependency of 2/3rd, which is not in accordance with legal provision and it should be ½. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has determined the dependency looking to the age of the mother of the deceased, which is also incorrect.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3500/- per month as in cross-examination Ram Naresh Sikarwar (AW-4) has himself admitted that the deceased was not having any driving licence, therefore the Tribunal has found proved that the deceased was not driver, rather he was helper or cleaner. This finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, learned counsel for the insurance company prays that the dependency be determined as ½ and the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the record available.
The Claims Tribunal framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings and after recording of the evident held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the offending Truck bearing registration No. MP06-HC-0401. The accident had taken place in the year 2009 and as it was established before the Tribunal that the deceased was not driver, rather he was cleaner, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased as 42000/- per annum. So far as the dependency of the deceased is concerned, it is undisputed that at the time of accident the deceased was unmarried and 22 years old, therefore, the dependency should be determined as ½ instead of 2/3rd as determined by the Tribunal. Besides, looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident, i.e., 22 years, the appellants are also entitled to get future prospect as observed in Pranay Sethi (supra) and since the deceased was between the age group of 21-25, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in place of 11.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants are entitled to the compensation as under:-
Heads
Compensation Awarded
Income
Rs.3500/- per month
Future Prospects
Rs.1400/- per month (i.e., 40% of the income)
Deduction towards personal
Rs.2450/- per month (i.e. 1/2 of expenditure the total income (3500+1400)
Total Income after deduction of personal expenses
Rs. 2450/- per month (4900- 2450)
Multiplier
18
Loss of future income
Rs. 5,29,200/- (Rs.2450 x 12 x 18)
Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses Tribunal)
Rs. 70000/- (as awarded by the
Total Compensation Payable
Rs. 5,99,200 /-
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,63,000/-. Thus, the appellants are held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.2,36,200/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs.5,99,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by this Court.
In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.