Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 601 (UTT)

Rajiv Rawal And Anr. v. Man Singh

2006-10-31

R.GUPTA, R.TANDON

body2006
JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide award dated 3.1.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 135 of 2003. 2. The claimants, who are unfortunate husband and minor son of the deceased Ritu Rawal, claimed compensation of Rs. 44,67,000 for her death in the motor accident on 16.1.2003, when the cycle-rickshaw, in which she was going to her school, was dashed by offending vehicle, bus bearing registration No. UP 06-0476, resulting in serious injuries to Ritu Rawal, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of her treatment in the hospital the same day. The claimants pleaded that deceased Ritu Rawal used to earn Rs. 13,000 per month as salary from the school and tuition. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner and the driver took the plea that rickshaw puller himself was negligent and as such, was responsible for the accident. The insurer of the offending bus, on the other hand, pleaded that the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined PW 1, Rajiv Rawal; PW 2, Rajiv Ghai and PW 3, Ma-nish Kharbanda in support of their claim, whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the bus did not examine any witness. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Ritu Rawal died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.1.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus; and the insurer of the bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 43,161 per annum on the evidence led by the claimants about her income, including her income tax returns. By deducting about 1/3rd of the said amount as her personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 28,000 per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 28,000 with the multiplier of '13', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,74,000 (there is an apparent computation mistake as Rs. 28,000, when multiplied by '13', will come to Rs. 3,64,000 and not Rs. 3,74,000 as recorded in the award). By awarding Rs. 28,000 per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 28,000 with the multiplier of '13', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,74,000 (there is an apparent computation mistake as Rs. 28,000, when multiplied by '13', will come to Rs. 3,64,000 and not Rs. 3,74,000 as recorded in the award). By awarding Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,81,000 as compensation to the claimants for the death of Ritu Rawal in the motor accident. The Tribunal, further, directed the insurer of the offending bus to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition, i.e., 14.5.2003. 7. Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 43,161 per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of '13'; and in awarding interest at the lower rate of 6 per cent per annum. 8. Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. Manish Dalakoti, the learned Counsel for National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs. 3,81,000 to the claimants and as such, no enhancement is warranted in this appeal. 9. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal that deceased Ritu Rawal died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 16.1.2003; accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus; and the insurer of the bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants, have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. 10. Deceased Ritu Rawal was working as Principal in Sri Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School, Kashipur. The claimants have filed her income tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Her income tax return for the assessment year 2003-04 reveals that her income from salary was Rs. 64,742 and by deducting therefrom 'notional standard deduction' of Rs. 21,581, the balance amount was recorded as Rs. 43,161. Tribunal apparently, has fallen into error in taking this amount of Rs. 43,161 as her income from salary, whereas in fact her income from the salary was Rs. 64,742. 64,742 and by deducting therefrom 'notional standard deduction' of Rs. 21,581, the balance amount was recorded as Rs. 43,161. Tribunal apparently, has fallen into error in taking this amount of Rs. 43,161 as her income from salary, whereas in fact her income from the salary was Rs. 64,742. Her income tax return further makes it apparent that she had disclosed income of Rs. 12,000 from tuition, which was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Thus, her total income comes to Rs. 76,742 (Rs. 64,742 from salary + Rs. 12,000 from tuition). We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 76,742. 11. As the deceased was working as Principal in a senior secondary school, she must be spending substantial amount on herself. We, therefore, deem it proper to deduct a sum of Rs. 36,742 as her personal expenses and assess the claimants' dependency at Rs. 40,000. 12. The multiplier of '13' selected by Tribunal, in the facts of the case, appears to be on the higher side. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal/court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court, in the case of Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya , observed in paras 8 to 10: (8) But the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. (9) The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. (10) Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis 'and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master' since there are so often many imponderables. In every case 'it is the overall picture that matters' and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 13. Considering that the age of the deceased, her husband and her minor son was 38 years, 43 years and 14 years respectively; and that the dependency of the claimants has been assessed at Rs. 40,000 per annum, multiplier of '11', in view of the above quoted dictum of the Supreme Court, would be appropriate in the present case. 14. By multiplying annual dependency of Rs. 40,000 with the multiplier of 11', compensation works out to Rs. 4,40,000. Claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to the husband. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation for the death of Ritu Rawal in the motor accident. 15. For the foregoing reasons, appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 3,81,000 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000 (rupees four lakh fifty thousand). We further award quantified interest of Rs. 11,000 (rupees eleven thousand) on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 69,000. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 3, is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 69,000 (rupees sixty-nine thousand) and quantified interest of Rs. 11,000 (rupees eleven thousand) before the concerned Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs.