Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 311 (JHR)

Prabha Kashyap v. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay

2003-03-05

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. Pursuant to order dated 17.1.2003 Registrar General conducted enquiry. Perused his report dated 26.2.2003 at flag O. The person, who was responsible for delay in dispatching lower Court records to this Court has already been departmentally proceeded with. Hence, no further order is required to be passed in that regard. 2. Heard the parties and perused lower Court records and on their joint request this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Admittedly one Praveen Kashyap, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, who was posted at Ranchi met with a motor accident on 7.12.1995, while he was traveling on a Bus (BR-14P-0003) from Ranchi to Sasaram. On the way there was a head-on- collision of this Bus with another Bus (BR-14P-7059) coming from opposite direction. Sri Kashyap sustained multiple injuries in the said accident and died on the spot. 4. His widow, Smt. Prabha Kashyap and minor daughter, Pragyashree filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for compensation. It was registered as Compensation Case No. 31 of 1996 before Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. Ranchi. The deceased was aged between 41-45 years and was getting gross salary of Rs. 7595/- per month. The Bus, bearing registration No. BR-14P-0003 was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited" whereas the Bus, bearing registration No. BR-14P-7059 was insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident. 5. On the basis of evidence brought on record it was established that head- on-collision between two buses took place on account of rash and negligent drive in high speed by the drivers of both the buses in which Sri Praveen Kashyap lost his life. The Tribunal calculated total amount of compensation at Rs. 5,9l,208/- with interest @ 9% per annum payable to the claimants half and half by the aforesaid two insurance Companies on behalf of owners of the two buses. 6. The claimants have filed present appeal under Section 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. Counsel for appellants submitted that while assessing compensation amount, Tribunal did not consider the prospect of advancement in future service career of the deceased and also erred in applying 12 multiplier instead of 15, which was appropriate, considering the age of the deceased. Counsel for appellants submitted that while assessing compensation amount, Tribunal did not consider the prospect of advancement in future service career of the deceased and also erred in applying 12 multiplier instead of 15, which was appropriate, considering the age of the deceased. On the other hand, counsel for Oriental Insurance Company submitted that Tribunal rightly applied decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 (2) TAC 286. 7. The multiplier system is sound in computing compensation is now well settled but what multiplier should be applied would depend on various circumstances. The age of deceased, the age of dependants, not only existing salary when he died, if any additional sum payable to the deceased depending upon the nature of job in which he was working, his chances of promotion, the life expectancy etc. Hence, multiplier is bound to change some degree and principle of multiplier would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. Looking to the facts of this case, we find that the Tribunal has given good reasons for applying the multiplier of 12. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed an error in determining annual dependency in the present case at Rs. 48684/- only. In absence of any specific evidence in respect of personal expenses of the deceased only 1/3rd of his income would have been deducted towards his personal expenses while calculating annual dependency. In this manner annual dependency comes at Rs. 60756/-(Rs. 7595/- Rs. 2532/- = Rs. 5063/- X 12). Applying 12 multiplier thereto total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,29,072/-. 9. In our considered opinion, in the aforesaid circumstance, a lump-sum amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was just compensation for the claimants. Accordingly, we enhance the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 5,91,208/- as assessed by the Tribunal to Rs. 7,00,000/- payable to the claimants with interest @ 9% from 1.8.2000 till payment. 10. With this modification in the impugned judgment and award, this appeal is disposed of.