AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
These miscellaneous appeals arise out of same award, hence are being decided by a common order :
M.A. No.536/2014 and M.A. No.535/2014 have been filed by the State/appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 10.09.2013 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur, in Claim Case No.15/2012 and Claim Case No.16/2012, whereby Hardev Singh @ Dharmendra and Rajendra Asati died in an accident and compensation Rs.3,22,000/- was awarded along with interest. M.A. No.3637/2013 has been preferred by the appellants (father and mother of deceased Rajendra Asati) for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in the case.
M.A. No. 536/2014 and M.A. No. 535/2014 have been filed by the State challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive. It has been contended that, at the time of the accident, both the deceased were travelling on Motorcycle No. MP-34-MB-2815 and that the rider was allegedly talking on a mobile phone while driving, due to which the accident occurred. Therefore, according to the appellant, both the deceased were guilty of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect.
Learned Government Advocate Ms. Shikha Sharma further argued that Gyan Singh, the driver of the offending Jeep No. MP-03-6864, who was examined before the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents, had stated that the rider of the motorcycle was talking on a mobile phone at the time of the accident.
The above contention cannot be accepted. A perusal of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Tribunal's award shows that the Tribunal has dealt with this issue in detail. It has recorded that an FIR was lodged against Gyan Singh, the driver of the offending jeep, and after a fair investigation, the Investigating Officer concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Gyan Singh. It is also relevant to note that Gyan Singh himself was a Head Constable posted in a police station. Despite this, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to hold him responsible for the accident. Therefore, the plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellant is not supported by the evidence on record.
Learned Government Advocate further submitted that Gyan Singh was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in the criminal case registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he cannot be held negligent. This submission also deserves to be rejected. It is well settled that criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are distinct in nature. The standard of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case does not, by itself, absolve him of civil liability or affect the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.
It was next contended that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and that the Tribunal arbitrarily assessed their monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. This argument is also without merit. The record shows that at the time of the accident, deceased Rajendra Asati was 24 years of age and deceased Hardev was 21 years of age. The Tribunal assessed their monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. The material on record indicates that, at the relevant time, the minimum wages notified for an unskilled labourer, as per the Collector's guidelines, were Rs.4,395/- per month. Thus, the income assessed by the Tribunal was, in fact, lower than the prevailing minimum wages and cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues of negligence, but assessment of income is not as per Collector's guideline. The compensation awarded is just, reasonable, and based on the evidence available on record. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, M.A. No. 536/2014 and M.A. No. 535/2014 are dismissed.
On perusal of the award, it appears that the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased, Rajendra Asati, at Rs.4,000/-. However, as per the Collector's guidelines applicable at the relevant time, the monthly income of an unskilled labourer was Rs.4,395/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.52,740/-. The deceased was about 24 years of age at the time of the accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required. Thus, an amount of Rs.21,096/- is added, making the total annual income Rs.73,836/- (Rs.52,740/- + Rs.21,096/-). Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. After such deduction, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.36,918/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 18. Therefore, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.6,64,524/- (Rs.36,918/- × 18). The claimants are further entitled to compensation under the conventional heads, namely, Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium to the two eligible claimants, totalling Rs.80,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation payable comes to Rs.7,74,524/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded only Rs.3,22,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,52,524/- (Rs.7,74,524/- − Rs.3,22,000/-), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, i.e., 04.12.2013, until realization.
Accordingly, M.A. No.3637/2013 is partly allowed . The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,22,000/-to Rs.7,74,524/-. The claimants shall be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.4,52,524/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 04.12.2013 (the date of filing of the appeal) until the date of realization. The remaining terms and directions of the Tribunal's award shall remain unchanged.
The record be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.