Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation vs Smt. Baby and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 11.4.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, "the Tribunal"). Smt. Baby and others , the dependents of Anil Kumar sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for the death of Anil Kumar having occurred in a roadside accident that took place on 16.2.2012. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,85,000/- as compensation with interest thereon. The challenge by way of this appeal is to the income and interest awarded by the Tribunal. Anil Kumar is said to have died at the age of 26 years. He is claimed to be working as a driver with Delhi Bhiwani Road Carrier and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed to have been spent on the treatment and last rites of the deceased.

The aforesaid averments of the claimants have been denied by respondent No. 2. Respondent no. 1 had been proceeded against ex-parte.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- per month is on higher side. According to him, this should not have exceeded Rs. 4,000/-. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has contradicted itself in the relief clause where at one point he has awarded interest on the award money at 9% per annum and at another place, he has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The accident has occurred on 16.2.2012. Now a days, even an unskilled labourer charges Rs. 200/- per day for masonry work. A mason charges Rs. 400/- per day at least. Though, the claimants claimed that Anil Kumar was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, learned Tribunal for want of documentary evidence to prove the same, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. I find no reason to interfere with this aspect of the award. The income has, therefore, been correctly taken and the calculation of compensation has been rightly done.

In the relief clause, interest allowed is 9% per annum. However, a penalty clause is added to the effect that if respondents No. 1 and 2 did not deposit the compensation within 2 months, the interest they will be liable to pay on the award money would be 12% per annum. In my opinion, the two interests allowed do not appear to be contradictory. The second rate of interest is allowed in the eventuality of non payment of award money by the respondents within a period of two months. I find no illegality in imposition of such a condition by learned Tribunal. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine.