Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Others v. Sohi Ram & Others

1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Churu (for short the Tribunal) vide impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2000 passed in Civil Misc. (MACT) case No.13/2000 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 27.10.1999 deceased Praveen along with one foreigner, Raju Swami and Munnalal were travelling in a Tempo No. RJ 10 P 1201. a Jeep No. RJ 10 C 1784 coming from opposite side being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the Tempo as a result of which all the passengers in the Tempo sustained injuries and due to the injuries, Praveen died.

3. Notices of the claim petition were served on the respondents-non-petitioners and they filed their written statement.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. Both the parties produced their oral and documentary evidence in support of their case.

5. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 16.06.2000 awarded compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law while passing the impugned award as the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.500/-. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier while computing the compensation. Further it is submitted that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimants/appellants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Churu.

9. There is no evidence on record with regard to income of the deceased Praveen. The deceased was 25 years old at the time of accident. He left behind parents and one younger brother. The deceased was bachelor. In the claim petition it has been pleaded that the deceased was in the employment of M/s. Jain Tourist Guide & Travels but no salary certificate issued by M/s. Jain Tourist Guide & Travels was produced in evidence. In support of the claim, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to regular employment of the deceased. FIR No.342/1999 of the said accident was registered at Police Station Sardar Shahar for offences under Section 297, 337, 304A IPC. During investigation Ex-8 Statement of Paul Anthony, who was travelling in Tempo along with deceased, was recorded. In his statement, Paul Anthony deposed that Jeep driver was driving to jeep rough rash and negligently. He further deposed that he was travelling with deceased Praveen and he had very serious injuries to his head and neck. On perusal of the evidence, it reveals that the deceased was engaged in tourist guide work, but so far as his regular income and employment is concerned, there is no evidence on record. The deceased was 25 years old young man. Though he was not in permanent job on fixed salary but considering the minimum wages prevailing at that time, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased Praveen as Rs.500/-, which could have been considered as Rs.3,000/- per month. As per pleadings, the deceased was bachelor at that time. The parents and younger brother are dependant. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the number of dependent of the deceased Praveen, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.500/-.

10. So far as question regarding deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt.] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, has held that in a case of death of a bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Honble Apex Court in para 32 of said judgment has held as under :-

"Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

11. Thus, after deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,500/-.

12. So far as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal taking the age of the deceased as 25 years adopted the multiplier of 17. In the opinion of this Court, the multiplier of 17 adopted for computing the compensation is without justification and erroneous and in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt.] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Honble Apex Court while assessing the multiplier in para 42 of said judgment has held as under :-

"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

13. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:-

1,500 x 12 x 18 = 3,24,000/-

14. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants parents and Rs.5,000/- to the claimant brother as consortium for mental agony and for loss of love and affection. As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the parents and brother of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a lower side as at the time of accident the parents and brother of the deceased must have suffered a great shock and agony and should have been awarded at least Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants parents and Rs.20,000/- to the claimant brother on this count. Thus, it is held that in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- towards consortium for mental agony and loss of love and affection. The award of Rs.3,000/- toward funeral expenses is also on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under other heads to the claimants does not call for any interference.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 16.06.2000, the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- on account of loss of dependency and the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for mental agony and loss of love and affection as also Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs.4,61,000/- inclusive the amount already awarded by the respondent-Insurance Company. The claimants will be entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation.

Appeal partly allowed.