Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 410 (JHR)

Siyan (Kujur) Minz v. Sri Chandra Shekhar Azad

2002-03-22

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The appellant, who is the claimant has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.9.2001 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 18/90 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,472/- as compensation for the death of her husband in a Motor Vehicle Accident. 3. The husband of the appellant Dr. Samuel Minz on the relevant date of accident was going from Khunti to Ranchi to attend a Training Camp of University Immunization Programme. His motorcycle was hit by a tanker bearing Registration No. BPL 9036. The tanker was insured with the respondent-New India Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount by way of compensation. 4. The appellant has come for enhancement of the compensation on the ground, inter alia, that the deceased was a MBBS Doctor posted at Murhu Block, Primary Health Centre and he was aged about 48 years. He died leaving behind his widow and a child, The deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 3,792/-. 5. From perusal of the judgment it appears that the Tribunal, while assessing the quantum of compensation has taken into consideration four (4) Units and the share per Unit was worked out on the basis of monthly salary i.e. Rs. 3,792/-. Taking Rs. 1,496/- as monthly dependency he assessed annual dependency at Rs. 70,954/- and multiplied it by 11. In this way the Tribunal assessed a total sum of Rs. 1,97,472/- as compensation and on that amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was added for the loss and expectation of life. 6. We are of the view, that the mode of assessment adopted by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal should have adopted multiplier theory for the purpose of assessment of compensation. As noticed above the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,792/-. If we deduct 1/3rd out of the total salary then the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,542/- and annual dependency comes to Rs. 30,504/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even as per the schedule minimum multiplier of 13 and maximum of 15 ought to have taken by the Tribunal. 3,792/-. If we deduct 1/3rd out of the total salary then the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,542/- and annual dependency comes to Rs. 30,504/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even as per the schedule minimum multiplier of 13 and maximum of 15 ought to have taken by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the minimum compensation payable to the appellant ought to have been 4,50,000/-. We find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. We, therefore, take 14 years of purchase and by multiplying it with the annual dependency i.e. Rs. 30,504/- x 14, the total amount comes to Rs. 4,27,056/-. A lamp sum of Rs. 4.25 lacs would be reasonable compensation. Since the compensation has been assessed by adopting multiplier theory there is no need of payment of additional compensation by way of consortium or for loss of expectation of life etc. 8. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the award is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 4.25 lacs. Needless to say that the amount already paid by way of interim compensation shall be deducted out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4.25 lacs. We, however, do not disturb the interest part of he award. It is expected that the Insurance Company shall immediately release the balance amount of compensation together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The direction of the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation is also modified to the extent that out of the total compensation amount, 50% will be deposited in the name of the son of the deceased under a fixed term deposit of 7 years.