Sunil Kanodiya and Another vs Raj Kumar and Others

Hon''ble Mahesh Chand Sharma, J.—Since these Misc. appeals relate to award dated 18th August, 1998 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kotputili, District Jaipur in MACT Cases Nos. 25/92, 26/92, 18/92, and 548/93, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

The facts in brief are that on 1st March, 1990 deceased Shyamaprasad Kanodiya, Sajjan Kumar Kanodiya, Smt. Savitri Kanodiya and Smt. Bhagwati were travelling in Car No. BSF 5620 from Jaipur to Delhi alongwith some other persons when the Truck bearing No. HYDW 816 being driven rash and negligent by Rajkumar driver hit the car by coming in wrong direction due to which deceased Shyamprasad Kanodiya, Smt. Savitri Kanodiya, Sajjan Kumar Kanodiya and Smt. Bhagwati died. Rajkumar, driver who is respondent herein was working under the employment of M/s. Royal Transport of India, respondent No. 2 herein who owned the truck which was insured with the respondent No. 3 New India Insurance Company at the time of accident. A challenge u/s 304-A I.P.C. was also filed against the truck driver in the competent Court.

The respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner did not appear in spite of service of notices upon them and as such ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., filed its reply in which it denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The MACT on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed as many as 5 issues including relief. The issue No. 3 was to the effect that as to how much compensation is to be given to the claimants of the deceased. In all four claim petitions were filed and all these claim petitions were clubbed together and common award was passed by the MACT. Pawan Kanodiya was examined as AW-1, Smt. Padma Devi as AW-2, Vijay Kumar as AW-3, Ramu as AW-4 Bhojraj as AW-5 and Smt. Dropadi Devi as AW-6 on behalf of the claimants and certain documentary evidence was got exhibited on their behalf. No evidence was produced on behalf of the opposite parties. The MACT vide its impugned award dated 18th August, 1998 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck who was working under the employment of M/s. Royal Transport of India, owner of the truck. The claimants of deceased Shyama Prasad Kanodiya, Smt. Savitri Kanodiya, Sajjan Kumar Kanodiya and Smt. Bhagwati, filed these four appeals for enhancement of compensation.

These appeals have been filed only for enhancement of compensation and the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the vehicle have not filed any appeal or cross-objection to challenge the common award dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the MACT and the other issues relating to common award stand confirmed. Now I may consider the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount in the common award, granted by the MACT one by one.

SBCMA No. 1031/1998

The MACT has awarded Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Savitri Kanodiya. The learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal has contended that the MACT has committed gross error of law and facts in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 75,000/- without adopting the settled principle of assessment while assessing the compensation for which the claimants were entitled. It was argued that where the deceased is a non earning member of the family still it is duty of the MACT to assess the loss of dependency to assess the compensation on the basis of suitable multiplier. The MACT has committed gross error in not awarding a sum of Rs. 64,000/- expenses incurred by the claimants on the funeral. The MACT has failed to appreciate the ratio of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, Admittedly age of the deceased was 50 years and she was earning a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The MACT should have doubled the income of the deceased keeping in view the future prospects of rise.

Mr. S.C. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the award of Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Savitri Kanodiya was just and proper and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected.

The MACT has rightly determined the age of Savitri Devi as 50 years. The claimants who are sons of Savitri Devi have not disclosed in their statements that they were dependents on the income of Savitri Kanodiya. The claimants are earning from their business independently and they were not dependent on Savitri Kanodiya and hence looking to the fact that they have been deprived of love and affection and they have incurred money in funeral etc., the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 75,000/ -. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal filed by the claimants thus deserves to be rejected. The claimants are not entitled to claim any further compensation.

SBCMA 1108/1998

The MACT has awarded Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya. The learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal has contended that the MACT has committed gross error of law and facts in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 75,000/- without adopting the settled principle of assessment while assessing the compensation for which the claimants were entitled. It was argued that where the deceased is a non earning member of the family still it is duty of the MACT to assess the loss of dependency to assess the compensation on the basis of suitable multiplier. The MACT committed gross error in not awarding a sum of Rs. 64,000/- expenses incurred by the claimants on the funeral. The MACT has failed to appreciate the ratio of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, Admittedly age of the deceased was 55 years and he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The MACT should have doubled the income of the deceased keeping in view the future prospects of rise.

Mr. S. C. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the award of Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya was just and proper and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected.

The MACT has rightly determined the age of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya as 55 years. The claimants who are sons of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya have not disclosed in their statements that they were dependents on his father''s income. In his statement Pawan Kanodiya admitted that Rajrajeshwar Udyog firm is still continuing. In this firm now there are two partners Sunil Kanodiya and Hemant Kanodiya. There is no evidence on record to show that on account of death of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya they have suffered any loss to their business. It has also not been proved by evidence that they were dependent on the income of Shyama Prasad Kanodiya. The claimants are earning from their business independently and they were not dependent on Shyama Prasad Kanodiya and hence looking to the fact that they have been deprived of love and affection and they have incurred money in funeral etc., the MACT rightly awarded Rs. 75,000/-. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal filed by the claimants thus deserves to be rejected. The claimants are not entitled to claim any further compensation.

SBCMA No. 1032/1998

The MACT awarded Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Smt. Bhagwati. The learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal has contended that the MACT has committed gross error of law and facts in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 75,000/- without adopting the settled principle of assessment while assessing the compensation for which the claimants were entitled. It was argued that were the deceased is a non earning member of the family still it is duty of the MACT to assess the loss of dependency to assess the compensation on the basis of suitable multiplier. The MACT committed gross error in not awarding a sum of Rs. 64,000/- expenses incurred by the claimants on the funeral. The MACT failed to appreciate the ratio of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, The MACT should have doubled the income of the deceased keeping in view the future prospects of rise.

Mr. S. C. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the award of Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Smt. Bhagwati was just and proper and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected.

The Claimant No. 1 who was husband of Smt. Bhagwati died and Vijay Kumar claimant No. 2, who is son of Bhagwati stated in his statement that his mother was aged 60 years and she was earning from interest and shares and during the years 89-90 she earned more than Rs. 20,000/- per year. He stated that her/(his) mother was earning Rs. 2,500/ - per month. He also stated that on hearing that his mother died, they came from Calcutta and for that they have incurred more than Rs. 2,00,000/ -. From the statement of Vijay Kumar it has not been proved that he was dependent on the income of his mother. The claimant is aged 49 (sic) years and he is earning self and was not dependent on his mother. If he has incurred huge money in going to Calcutta by flight and huge amount has been incurred by him in cremation, for that he is not entitled to claim any amount by way of compensation and hence looking to the fact that he has been deprived of love and affection and he has incurred money in funeral etc., the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 75,000/-. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal filed by the claimant thus deserves to be rejected. The claimant is not entitled to claim any further amount.

SBCMA No. 1109/1998

The MACT has awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- for the death of Sajjan Kumar. The learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal has contended that the MACT has committed gross error of law and facts in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- without adopting the settled principle of assessment while assessing the compensation for which the claimants were entitled. It was argued that the MACT has erred in computing annual income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 45,000/-. By positive evidence the claimant has proved that the monthly income of the deceased was nearly Rs. 12,000/- per month and in support of it documents were also produced. The MACT has committed gross error in adopting the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 22,500/- per year. The MACT while adopting multiplier has committed gross error in taking it to be 10 years only which is highly inadequate in the facts of this case. The MACT has committed gross error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of love and consortium, which is on very lower side. The MACT has committed gross error in awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/- only towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The MACT has not considered that a sum of Rs. 64,000 were incurred towards funeral expenses of the deceased. While deciding the issue No. 3 the MACT has failed to appreciate the ratio of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that income of the deceased should be doubled keeping in view the future prospects of rise. The MACT should have doubled the income of the deceased keeping in view the future prospects of rise.

Mr. S.C. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the award of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the death of Sajjan Kumar Kanodiya is just and proper and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected.

The claimant Smt. Padma Devi stated in his statement that his/ (her) husband during the year 1989 earned by way of commission and interest more than Rs. 1,50,000/- per year. Smt. Padma Devi produced Ext. 39 of the year 1989 wherein income of Sajjan Kumar is shown as Rs. 44,530/ -. In this mariner the MACT fixed the income of the deceased Sajjan Kumar as Rs. 45,000/-. The MACT has also found that the claimant was only the dependent on Sajjan Kumar and in this manner dependency was determined Rs. 22,500/- per year. The MACT has applied the multiplier of 10 and in this manner computed Rs. 2,25,000/-. The MACT has also determined a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of love and affection. For mental agony a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was determined. Rs. 5,000/- were assessed to be incurred on funeral. In this manner the MACT has determined Rs. 2,60,000/ - and rightly awarded Rs. 2,60,000/- to the claimant. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjustified. The appeal filed by the claimant thus deserves to be rejected. The claimant is not entitled to claim any further amount.

For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the Misc. appeals Nos. 1031/98, 1032/98, 1108/98 and 1109/98 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 18th August, 1998 passed by MACT, Kotputli in claim petitions Nos. 18/92, 548/93, 25/92, and 26/92 stands confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.