Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 315 (JHR)

PRABHA KASHYAP v. ASHOK KUMAR UPADHYAY

2003-03-05

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, H.S.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment : GURUSHARAN SHARMA AND HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. J. ( 1 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 17. 1. 2003 Registrar General conducted inquiry. Perused his report dated 26. 2. 2003 at flag o. The person, who was responsible for delay in despatching 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 travelling in a bus (BR 14-P 0003) from Ranchi to sasaram. On the way there was a head-on collision of this bus with another bus (BR 14-P 7059) coming from opposite direction. Kashyap sustained multiple injuries in the said accident and died on the spot. ( 4 ) HIS widow, Prabha Kashyap and a 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 Accidents Claims tribunal, Ranchi. The deceased was aged between 41-45 years and was getting gross salary of Rs. 7,595 per month. The bus bearing registration No. BR 14-P 0003 was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. whereas bus bearing registration No. BR 14-P 7059 was insured with National insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. ( 5 ) ON the basis of evidence brought on record it was established that the head-on collision between two buses took place on account of rash and negligent driving in high speed by the drivers of both the buses in which Praveen Kashyap lost his life. The Tribunal calculated total amount of compensation at Rs. 5,91,208 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum payable to claimants half and half by the aforesaid two insurance companies on behalf of the owners of the two buses. ( 6 ) THE claimants have filed the present appeal under section 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. 5,91,208 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum payable to claimants half and half by the aforesaid two insurance companies on behalf of the owners of the two buses. ( 6 ) THE claimants have filed the present appeal under section 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. The counsel for appellants submitted that while assessing the compensation amount, tribunal did not consider the prospect of advancement in future service career of the deceased and also erred in applying multiplier of 12 instead of 15, which was appropriate, considering the age of the deceased. On the other hand, counsel for oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. submitted that tribunal rightly applied decision of the apex Court reported in U. P. State Road trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 acj 831 (SC ). ( 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, age of the 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. 48,684 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 the annual dependency comes at Rs. 60,756 (Rs. 7,595 - Rs. 2,532 = rs. 5,063 x 12 ). Applying the multiplier of 12 thereto total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,29,072. ( 9 ) THUS, in our considered opinion, in the aforesaid circumstances, 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 at the rate of 9 per cent from 1. 8. ( 9 ) THUS, in our considered opinion, in the aforesaid circumstances, 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 at the rate of 9 per cent from 1. 8. 2000 till payment. ( 10 ) WITH this modification in the impugned judgment and award, this appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of. --- *** --- .