Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 93 (UTT)

MADHURI RAWAT v. YOGAMBER SINGH RAWAT

2005-03-23

C.S.RAWAT, RAJESH TANDON

body2005
RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 8. 7. 1997 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to (he present appeal are that appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal for grant of compensation on account of death of Tirath Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 25/11/1995 at 5 p. m. at village Teka near Kanshkhet, District Pauri Garhwal involving bus No. UTS 1021. The claimants alleged that on the date of accident the deceased was going with a marriage party. When the ill-fated bus reached near village teka, it had stopped to take some more baratis. The deceased Tirath Singh Rawat had climbed on the roof of the bus to load luggage of those baratis. Soon he was coming down from the roof of the bus, the driver without any signal started the bus due to which the deceased fell down and he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was rushed to the District Hospital, pauri Garhwal where he remained admitted till 27/11/1995. Thereafter he was taken to delhi and was treated in Safdarjang Hospital from 28. 11. 95 to 12. 1. 1996. Thereafter he was discharged but he developed complication and was again admitted in safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where he succumbed to the injuries on 9/4/1996. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. He was doing business and was earning Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. ( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 1, owner of the bus did not contest the claim petition. However, the insurance company contested the claim petition and filed its written statement. ( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the accident, which was decided in affirmative and was held that Tirath Singh died on account of injuries, which he had received in the accident on 25/11/1995. Issue no. 2 was framed regarding insurance of the vehicle in question and on the basis of evidence on record it was held that the vehicle was validly insured with National insurance Co. Ltd. , at the time of accident. Issue no. 2 was framed regarding insurance of the vehicle in question and on the basis of evidence on record it was held that the vehicle was validly insured with National insurance Co. Ltd. , at the time of accident. Issue No. 4 was framed regarding violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and it was held that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The findings on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not disputed before us. ( 5 ) ISSUE No. 3 was framed with regard to the amount of compensation and the claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and out of that amount he was spending Rs. 3,000. 00 per month on his family. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as compensation for the pecuniary loss. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 for the expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased and Rs. 5,000. 00 for the last rites of the deceased. Thus the claimants were awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000. 00 as compensation. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by claimants. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. ( 7 ) THE main contention of the appellants is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The compensation ought to have been calculated on the basis of the multiplier method. There is uncontroverted evidence in respect of the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the deceased and the claimants are entitled to get the same but the Claims tribunal was not justified to award only a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 on that count. ( 8 ) SO far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is oral testimony of pw 1 Madhuri Rawat. She stated as under: "my husband had been running a purchoon shop in Jaunpur for 7-8 months before his accident. He was earning rs. 4,000. 00 to Rs. 5,000. 00 p. m. " ( 9 ) PW 2 Devendra Singh also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000. 00 to rs. 5,000. She stated as under: "my husband had been running a purchoon shop in Jaunpur for 7-8 months before his accident. He was earning rs. 4,000. 00 to Rs. 5,000. 00 p. m. " ( 9 ) PW 2 Devendra Singh also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000. 00 to rs. 5,000. 00 per month and he had his shop in the house of his father-in-law. The claims Tribunal has held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500. 00 per month as he was running a purchoon shop. The learned Tribunal erred in holding that out of this amount he used to spend Rs. 3,000. 00 per month on his family. The learned Tribunal also erred in awarding the lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 without applying the multiplier method. ( 10 ) IN the case of U. P. State Road trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 acj 831 (SC), it has been held that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has further been held that the multiplier method must be accepted for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which bring uniformity and certainty in awarding the compensation. ( 11 ) THE Apex Court has observed as under:"the situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the amendment Act, 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of sections 163-A and 163-B in chapter XI entitled 'insurance of Motor vehicles against Third Party Risks'. Section 163-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the second Schedule, we find a Table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party fatal accident/injury claims arising out of the accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this Table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas' case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). " ( 12 ) IN the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), the Apex court has held as under:"in the case of U. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. " ( 13 ) IN view of the above, after deducting 1/3rd amount, i. e. , Rs. 1,200. 00 from the monthly income Rs. 3,500. 00 of the deceased for own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive, the dependency of the claimants on the income of deceased comes to Rs. 2,300. 00 per month or Rs. 27,600. 00 per annum. The age of deceased at the time of accident was 32 years. Thus, considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 17 would be applicable and by multiplying the amount of annual dependency of Rs. 27,600. 00 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,69,200. 00. ( 14 ) SO far as the amount incurred in the treatment of the deceased is concerned, the claimants filed cash memos and bills for only Rs. 3,638. 60 as per list 27-C before the Claims Tribunal. It has been stated on behalf of claimants that although the claimants incurred a sum of about Rs. 1,25,000 on the treatment of the deceased but other vouchers and cash memos were lost. 3,638. 60 as per list 27-C before the Claims Tribunal. It has been stated on behalf of claimants that although the claimants incurred a sum of about Rs. 1,25,000 on the treatment of the deceased but other vouchers and cash memos were lost. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 on this count. The deceased Tirath Singh had survived for about four and a half months after the accident and during that period he got treatment at District Hospital, Pauri garhwal and at Safdarjang Hospital, New delhi. Thus, certainly a considerable sum might have been incurred on his treatment, conveyance, diet and for maintenance of attendants. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 on this count would be sufficient to compensate the loss to the claimants. ( 15 ) APART from the amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the last rites of the deceased a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 is awarded to Madhuri, widow of the deceased for loss of consortium. ( 16 ) IN State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC), reliance has been placed on the judgment of Helen C, Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), regarding 'just compensation'. The observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:"though by use of the expression 'which appears to it to be just' a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just' denotes fairness, equitability and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so it cannot be just. " ( 17 ) THUS, the claimants are awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,19,200. 00 as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The amount of compensation shall be paid preferably by insurance company. Madhuri, claimant No. 1 shall get one-third of the total amount while rest of the amount shall be divided equally in the remaining claimants. The amount payable to the minors shall be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank till the time they attain the age of majority. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. The amount payable to the minors shall be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank till the time they attain the age of majority. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .