Shanker Lal v. Yaseen Ali — 1996 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Honble GUPTA, J. – This appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant for the enhancement of the compensation awarded vide judgment dated 14.3.1989. (2). This case relates of an accident which occurred on 13.2.1989 in which a boy of 10 years lost his life. The vehicle involved in the accident was bus No. RJX 1982 and its driver was Yaseen Ali. The bus belongs to the Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Vanasthali and was insured to the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Reply of the driver and the owner was that there was no fault of the driver in the accident. The Insurance Company raised some legal objections. (3). The learned Tribunal framed six issues. Claimants, Shanker Lal and Smt. Bhonri Devi, entered into the witness box and examined Ram Gopal (AW 2) and Prabhat (AW 3). In rebutal Yaseen Ali gave his statement. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments found under Issue No. 1 that the accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Under Issue No. 2, compensation of Rs. 31,000/- was held to be just compensation. (4). I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. (5). Shri Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amount awarded to the appellants, is grossely inadequate. Pointing out that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, he urges that at least Rs. 1,00,000/- ought to have been awarded. He has referred to the case of Milan Chaudhari & Anr. vs. Mrs. Surinder Singh & Ors. (1). His further contention is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 even under the principle of `No Fault Liability, a claim of Rs. 50,000/- was awardable as it has been held by this court in the case of National Insurance Com- pany vs. Manju & Ors. (2), that the provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are applicable even to the cases which were pending prior to coming into the force of the new Act. On the other hand, Shri Sharma contends that adequate compensation has been awarded and there are no special circumstances for enhancement. (6). At the out set, it may be observed that the amount awarded is certainly inadequate. On the other hand, Shri Sharma contends that adequate compensation has been awarded and there are no special circumstances for enhancement. (6). At the out set, it may be observed that the amount awarded is certainly inadequate. The learned Tribunal has not made any calculation for arriving at the figure of Rs. 31,000/-. Where there is death of a person who had not started earnings, it is always necessary to keep in mind that the deceased could be in the position of earning on attaining 20 years of age and also that the parents could avail of the pecuniary benefits upto the age of 70 years which according to the Honble Apex Court is now the average age of Indians; vide Jotsana vs. State of Assam (3). Then it has to found as to what amount the deceased could spend on his parents. This can be estimated keeping in view the education of the child the family back ground and other relevant consideration. The fact that the deceased would have married and would have spent substantial amount on his wife and children will also to be kept in view. (7). In the cae of Hassa Mal vs. Jati Ram (4), this court assessed the loss of benefits at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. and adopting multiplier of 20, made an award of Rs. 48,000/-. The same principle was adopted by this court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal (5). (8). In the instant case, the parents were of 30 years and 20 years of age at the time Kalu Ram died. It can safely be presumed that Kalu Ram could have been in the position of providing pecuniary benefits to his parents after attaining the age of 20 years. At that point of time, Shanker would be of 40 years age and Smt. Bhonri of 30 years age. Taking the age of 70 years of the parents, it can be said that the loss of pecuniary benefits to the parents was for 32 years. (9). There cannot be definite estimate if upto what height the deceased would have gone. However, keeping in view that even a Class IV employee earns Rs. 1500/- p.m., it can safely be presumed that the deceased would have spent at least Rs. 400/- on his parents. Thus, the loss of dependency is Rs. (9). There cannot be definite estimate if upto what height the deceased would have gone. However, keeping in view that even a Class IV employee earns Rs. 1500/- p.m., it can safely be presumed that the deceased would have spent at least Rs. 400/- on his parents. Thus, the loss of dependency is Rs. 4,800/- p.a. The multiplier system is the test system to compute the just compensation. The latest trend is that 16 is maximum multiplier which can be adopted in the accident cases. On adopting the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 76,800/-. In my opinion, this is the just compensation in this case, which should be awarded to the appellants. (10). Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 76,800/- from the respondents. However, the liability of the Insurance Company shall be limited to Rs. 50,000/- as per the provisions of Sec. 95(2)(b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellants shall get interest on this amount as ordered by the learned Tribunal. The appellants have already got Rs. 15,000/- u/s. 92-A. That amount shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount. The payment shall be made by Account Payee Cheque. The enhanced amount shall also be deposited in the F.D.A/c for a period of 3 years.