Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 52 (UTT)

Mohd. Shafique v. Santosh Kumar Pandey

2006-02-24

M.M.GHILDIYAL, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocates for respondent NO.2. 2. On due consideration, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard. 4. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (First Fast Track Court), Haldwani, District Nalnltal vide Award dated 21-08-2003 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 2003. 5. Claimant Mohd. Shafique claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the unfortunate death of his son Shabu in the motor accident on 15-04-2003 when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. UP 24 6464 owned by first respondent Santosh Kumar Pandey and insured with second respondent National Insurance Company resulting in the Instantaneous death of Shabu on the spot itself. The claimant further pleaded that deceased Shabu used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month by making grills. 6. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus contested the claim and disowned their liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the plea that deceased Shabu himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer took the further plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Bus was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 7. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Shabu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident; the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus; and that the insurer of the Bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimant as it could not establish that the driver of the offending vehicle Bus was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. As the evidence led by the claimant about the income of the deceased was found unreliable, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month on its own estimate. By deducting 1/3" of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs. As the evidence led by the claimant about the income of the deceased was found unreliable, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month on its own estimate. By deducting 1/3" of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased and the age of the claimant and the fact that deceased Shabu was unmarried, the Tribunal found the multiplier of 15 to be appropriate in the case. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out at Rs. 1,80,000/- The Tribunal awarded further sums under various heads and thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,84,500/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant for the death of his son Shabu in the accident. 8. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month only and In awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/- only as against the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- claimed by the claimant as the compensation. 9. Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. Anil Dabral, learned counsel for second respondent National Insurance Company Ltd., on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/- though the claimant, in fact, was not at all dependent on deceased Shabu as the claimant himself being aged about 45 years, was a earning member. 10. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel for first respondent Santosh Kumar Pandey, the owner of the offending vehicle Bus also supported the award. 11. Though the claimant pleaded that his son Shabu used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month by making grills, no reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that deceased Shabu was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, no fault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at its own estimate. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. In this state of evidence, no fault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at its own estimate. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- per annum. 12. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3" of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses though normally in the case of an unmarried son, deduction up to 50% of the income is made as his personal expenses. 13. So far as the multiplier of 15 is concerned, the Tribunal again has been too liberal. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731 has held that in a case where the claimants are parents of the deceased, multiplier of 10 only is appropriate and not multiplier of 15 as was selected by the Tribunal and the High Court in the said case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the income of the, the deceased, or the dependency of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal or the multipler selected. 15. The appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.