Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 439 (RAJ)

Leela Devi v. Sohan Lal

2007-02-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
R. S. Chauhan, J.—The appeal is against the award dt. 22.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/- to the appellants for the death of their son Dinesh Kumar. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 29.05.1995 the son of the appellants, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, was travelling with few other persons in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-20/G-1541, for Ganga Snan to Soranji (U.P.). While jeep was crossing near Village Nagla Mevati on Bharatpur road, a tanker, bearing Registration No. RJ-20/G-1541, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Three persons including Mr. Dinesh Kumar expired in the said accident. Since the appellants were mother and father of the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a composite reply, the respondent No.3, New India Insurance Company Ltd., filed a separate reply. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses and submitted six documents. On the other hand, the insurance company examined only a single witness to prove the insurance policy. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as stated above vide its award dt. 22.03.1997. Since the appellants are aggrieved by the said award, since they want the compensation amount to be enhanced, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount before this Court. 3. Mr. Hamendra Goyal for Mr. L.L. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that at the time of his death, the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, was 15 years old according to the Postmortem Report. The father, the appellant No. 1, was 37 years old. Therefore, according to the Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), the multiplier of 16 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 12. The learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for applying the lesser multiplier than required by the law. However, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 12. The learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for applying the lesser multiplier than required by the law. Secondly, he has contended that since the deceased was a non-caring person, according to the Schedule-II of the Act, his income should be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per month. Furthermore, without deducting 1/3 from the said amount, the said amount should be taken as a loss of dependency to the parents. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manu Devi and Anr. vs. Musafir Paswan and Anr., 2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 (SC). 4. On the other hand, Mr. G.K. Bhartia, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, has argued that income for a minor cannot notionally be taken to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum as the uncertainty of the life precludes the learned Tribunal from assessing his notional income in any concrete terms. In order to buttres, his contention, he has relied upon the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Satender and Ors., 2007(1) T.A.C. 11 (SC). 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 and 6 and have perused the impugned award. 6. Undoubtedly, the Schedule-II of the Act had come into force both on the date of the accident as well as on the date of passing of the award. Thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier as given in the Schedule-II of the Act. However, without stating any reasons much less cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 instead of a multiplier of 16. Therefore, this Court is inclined to apply the multiplier of 16 in consonance with the Schedule-II of the Act. 7. A bare perusal of the Schedule-II of the Act clearly reveals that there is a particular note appended below the tabulation, which dearly states that the amount of the compensation so arrived in the case of fatal accident, the claim shall be reduced by 1/3 in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintenance himself. But, the said note has not been placed under item No.6. According to item No. 6 notional income for compensation of a non-earning person shall be taken to be Rs. 15,000/-. But, the said note has not been placed under item No.6. According to item No. 6 notional income for compensation of a non-earning person shall be taken to be Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, while creating a legal fiction, item No.6 does not warrant that 1/3 deduction should be carried out in case of non-earning person, while calculating the compensation. It is in this view of the law that in case of Manju Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting the benefit of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the case of a minor has not deduced 1/3 therefrom as the amount, which the minor would have spent on himself/herself and he/she in alive. Since the law does not warrant such a deduction, notional income shall be taken as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Although in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has discussed the vagaries of life and the uncertainty of the life, it has not interpreted the Schedule-II of the Act. Therefore, the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present case. 8. In the result, while allowing this appeal, the notional income of the deceased would be taken as Rs. 15,000/-, the benefit of multiplier of 16 should be taken. Therefore, the compensation shall be calculated as under:- On the basis of Income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum with multiplier of 15 amount comes as under:- 15000 x 16 =Rs. 2,40,000.00 Amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000.00 Thus, Total Amount comes Rs.2,55,000.00 Less: Amount Awarded by Tribunal Rs. 1,11,000.00 Thus, enhanced amount comes Rs.1,44,000.00 9. The respondent Nos. 3 and 6 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation amount along with an interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 23.03.1997, the date of the award, and to pay a further interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.1997, the date of filing of the present appeal, till the date of realization. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover the said amount from the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 respectively, the insurance companies involved in this case, within a period of two weeks and to issue notice to the appellants and to deliver to them the compensation amount within the said period. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover the said amount from the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 respectively, the insurance companies involved in this case, within a period of two weeks and to issue notice to the appellants and to deliver to them the compensation amount within the said period. * * * * *