Misc Appeal C No 654 of 2010
1 Smt Padmalaya Yadav
2 Ajay Yadaw
3 Ku Anjali Yadaw
4 Jalandhar Yadaw
5 Smt Janki Yadaw
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 Ramswaroop Yadaw
2 Sureshchandra Bais
3 United India Insurance Co Ltd
...Respondents
! Shri Sanjay Agrawal counsel for the appellants ^ Shri AL Singraul counsel for respondent No 1 Shri Dashrath Gupta counsel for respondent No 3 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ & HONBLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J Dated: 13/12/2011
: Judgement
ORDER
Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 13th December 2011
The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.182/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Kanhaiya Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,64,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kanhaiya Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/G/4248; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.
5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,64,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kanhaiya Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
6) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month and the claimants' dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding only Rs.4,000/- under other heads.
7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Ramswaroop Yadaw, the owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award.
9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza.
10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11) As learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month; and the claimants' dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, we have not examined that aspect of the matter.
12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Kanhaiya Yadav was aged about 27 years on the date of the accident is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case.
13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Kanhaiya Yadav in the motor accident.
14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-.
17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty-five thousand only) (Rs.59,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.
18) No order as to costs.
J U D G E