Urmila Mankotia and Another vs Ram Saran and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Divya Shree, a son of the claimants died in a road side accident that took place on 23.09.2006. On his death, the claimants being his parents have brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 14.02.2011 has allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/-. Divya Shree has been a student and of the age of 18-1/2 years at the time of his death. He was a brilliant student of Swami Sant Dass Public School, Udasin Ashram, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar. He participated in different competitions at the State and National level. He would have been a great support to the claimants in their old age. On his death, the claimants have suffered great loss and they have claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The claim petition has been resisted by respondent No. 2 only. Respondent No. 1 has been proceeded against ex-parte. The vehicle involved in the accident has not been insured at the time of the accident. The answering respondent has denied the claim contained allegations regarding Divya Shree, as pleaded by the claimants. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

Learned Tribunal took the contribution of the deceased towards his parents at Rs. 4000/- per month. She assessed half of the same as dependency of the claimants, which came to Rs. 2000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 9 was adopted in the case and consequently a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- is found to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Divya Shree. A sum of Rs. 3000/- has been allowed as compensation towards funeral expenses and consequently a sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- has been awarded as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has sought enhancement of compensation on four grounds. The first, according to him, is the deduction made by learned Tribunal from the income of the deceased as assessed by her. According to him, this amount is the contribution of the deceased towards his parents and no deduction therefrom is to be made. In this regard, he has cited before me a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others, where an unmarried young boy died and from the income assessed for the deceased, no deduction was made.

The next point addressed by learned counsel for the appellants is that the multiplier should have been taken on the basis of the age of younger one of the claimants. According to him, Urmila Mankotia, the mother of the deceased, had been 52 years of age and, therefore, the multiplier should have been governed by the age of Urmila Mankotia and it should have been taken as 11.

The third point urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that no interest from the date of filing of the petition has been awarded by learned Tribunal. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded conditional interest only which was to be payable only if the respondents did not pay the compensation within a period of two months. He has further submitted that there was no reason with learned Tribunal to deprive the claimants of the interest on the aforesaid amount, which was available from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The last submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that inadequate amount has been awarded as compensation under the conventional heads. According to him, only a sum of Rs. 3000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses and no amount has been awarded for loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the deduction is required to be made from the income of the deceased as the deceased would have personal and living expenses which are to be accounted for while assessing compensation. According to him, the amount already stands paid within the time allowed by learned Tribunal and as such no interest was payable by respondent No. 2. He has further submitted that the mother of the deceased did not appear in the witness box and so there is nothing on the record to prove that the age of the mother of the deceased was 52 years. According to him, therefore, the multiplier has been rightly applied by learned Tribunal. He has, however, submitted that some enhancement can be made in compensation under the conventional heads only.

The deceased had not been an earning hand. He has been a student, although he is claimed to be a brilliant student. The question before me is as to whether any deduction is to be made from the income assessed by learned Tribunal of the deceased. No deduction had been made from the amount assessed as income of the deceased by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . In the reported case, the contribution of the children towards their parents was assessed and was straight way multiplied with the suitable multiplier and the amount found on multiplication was found as compensation. In the case in hand also Rs. 4000/- per month is not the income of the deceased but the prospective contribution of the deceased towards his family and thus no deduction thereto has to be made while assessing compensation.

Now comes the question as to what should be the multiplier in this case. Bishamar Singh Mankotia, claimant No. 2 has claimed his age as 58 years. Learned Tribunal took his age as 58 years on the date of the death of his son and has observed that his wife might have been two or three years younger to him. If it was so, then even the age of Urmila Mankotia may be 55 years at the time of the death of Divya Shree. The age of the younger one of the claimants has to be taken into account to select the multiplier. Since Urmila Mankotia has been 55 years of age, the multiplier of 11 would be available in this case as per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,

Learned Tribunal could not deny interest to the claimants by making a conditional order. The awarded money becomes payable from the date of filing the petition and thereafter interest on the amount is allowed as payable to the claimants. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the same.

It is true that learned Tribunal has not assessed adequate amount as compensation under the conventional heads. Making the calculation, a sum of Rs. 4000/- is the contribution of the deceased towards the claimants and multiplying it with 12, the contribution comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum. Multiplying it with 11, the multiplier selected as above, I find a sum of Rs. 5,28,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Divya Shree. Adding thereto a sum of Rs. 22,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, which they shall share in equal. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,19,000/- to Rs. 5,50,000/- with the terms regarding interest etc. as settled by learned Tribunal remaining the same.