The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another vs Pinky Kumari and Others

S.N. Hussain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioners-Insurers against the order dated 20th July, 2002, passed in Claim Case No. 53/94 by which the learned First Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, had allowed the claim of the claimants who are sisters (O.P. Nos. 1 and 2) and brother (O.P. No. 3) in this civil revision.

It is not in dispute that Manoj Kumar Sah aged twenty four years had died in accident on 18.6.1994. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was unmarried and issueless and his parents had also pre-deceased him and, hence, the claimants were only two sisters and one brother out of whom only one Pinky Kumari was major having attained the age of eighteen years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-Insurers is that the learned court below has wrongly taken the multiplier from the age of the claimant, although, the multiplier should have been taken from the age of the deceased. In support of his claim the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and also several case laws, reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Senior Divisional Manager, M.K. Sinha Vs. Shanti Devi and Others State of Haryana & another (in 252) vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.] in which, although, the claimant was mother, multiplier was taken from the age of the deceased. In the said decision this Court had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R., 2002 S.C.W. 2788 (H.S. Ahammed Hussain and another vs. Irfan Ahammad and another). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision reported in Mostt. Meena Devi and Others Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, in which it was held that multiplier depended upon several factors out of which one was the age of the deceased. He also submitted that the Hon''ble Apex Court has decided that the calculation as per schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not mandatory and was only a guideline, the maximum of which was multiplier of 18. In this regard he has relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, . Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order of the learned court below was not in accordance with the specific provision of law with respect to the person whose age should be made the basis of calculation and also with respect to multiplier being used in the instant case.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite parties submitted that the claims of the sisters and brother were in accordance with law and the case filed by O.P. No. 1 was maintainable and in accordance with the provisions of law. He further contended that no doubt it has been held by several decisions including one reported in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , that the age of the deceased or of the claimant, whichever is higher, have to be considered for calculating the compensation. He further claimed that, according to Schedule-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of the claimant was covered by the age group of 20-25 years as the age of the deceased was 24 years and, hence, the multiplier of 17 was applicable in the instant case.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the learned court below has committed two serious errors of law out of which the first was the calculation on the basis of the age of the claimant and not on the age of the deceased and the second was that wrong multiplier was used, although, the multiplier of 17 was applicable in the instant case.

Accordingly, I hereby allow this civil revision, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned court below to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) deposited by the revision-petitioners in this Court vide Challan No. 358 dated 18.12.2002 at the time of filing of the Misc. Appeal which was later on converted into civil revision, is directed to be returned to the revision-petitioners so that they may deposit the same in the learned court below which would be adjusted to the amount of compensation payable to the claimant.