Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 630 (MP)

P. S. Narayanswami v. Balkumran

2007-06-21

J.K.MAHESHWARI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
ORDER Kulshrestha, J. -- 1. This appeal by the parents of the unfortunate deceased Prakash Swami aged 24 years who died in motor accident, is directed against the award dated 17.3.2003 of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dewas in Claim Case No.39/2003 by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum ofRs.7,95,801/- as compensation against the claim of Rs.58,00,000/-. 2. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that they were totally dependent on the deceased who was an Engineering Graduate employed in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and was in receipt of the emoluments of Rs.20,000/- per month. On 31.12.2000, Prakash Swami along with the friend Balkumran was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA25/L-6346 as a pillion rider from Hubli to Belgaon, near Malprabha River. Balkumran drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently resulting in an accident with the result, deceased Prakash Swami sustained severe injuries. He was rushed to KLE Hospital, Belgaon but he succumbed to the injuries. In the treatment of the deceased, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent. The said motorcycle was insured with the respondent No.2. 3. The respondent No.1 conceded the case of the appellant while the respondent No.2 Insurance Company, denied the death of Prakash in an accident. The Company also denied that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on treatment and pleaded that the respondent No.1 did not have a valid licence of driving the motorcycle on the date of the incident. 4. The Tribunal framed four issues and came to the conclusion that the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA25/L-6346 was driven by the respondent No.1 rashly and negligently which resulted in death of deceased Prakash. In respect of the income, the Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.12,500/- per month and on that basis the said award of Rs.7,95,801/- was passed. 5. In determining the loss of dependency, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and since the deceased was living at a place which was far from the abode of the appellants, the deceased must not have been contributing more than 50% towards the maintenance of his parents. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and determined the total loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to which a sum of Rs.43,801/- was added towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 and determined the total loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to which a sum of Rs.43,801/- was added towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was a brilliant student and a qualified Engineering working in an organisation of repute and he had bright prospects. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants urges that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation instead of the meager sm of Rs.7,95,801/-. He has further urged that normally 2/3rd should have been awarded to the parents from out of the income of the deceased but the Tribunal has, without any cogent reason and contrary to law, awarded only 50% of the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has invited attention to the decision of this Court in Halkibai and another v. Managing Director Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another [ 2004(2) JLJ 47 = 2003(4) MPLJ 466 ], in which it has been laid down that in the case where the claimants are the parents of the deceased, the parents are entitled only to 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. The counsel for the appellant has, however, relied upon the case of Chandan Singh and another v. S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd. and others [TAC 2004(1) 765], in support of his contention that the parents are entitled to 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. 7. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal which determines it at Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. The only question that arises in this case is as to whether 1/3rd should have been deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased or the amount of 50% awarded by the Tribunal is proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. It is not the case of the appellant that the deceased was living with them and maintaining the house hold. From the facts it emerges that while the parents were residing at Dewas, the deceased was in Hubli, a distant place, and it is not possible to believe that the deceased was contributing 2/3rd of his income for the maintenance of his parents. From the facts it emerges that while the parents were residing at Dewas, the deceased was in Hubli, a distant place, and it is not possible to believe that the deceased was contributing 2/3rd of his income for the maintenance of his parents. As a matter of fact, in a separate establishment, it was likely that the deceased was spending more on himself than on his parents. However, since the Tribunal has awarded 50% of the income to work out the loss of dependency and no appeal has been filed against the said finding of the Tribunal, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants were entitled only to 50% of the income of the deceased. Accordingly we hold that amount of Rs.75,000/- worked out towards annual loss of dependency, does not call for any interference. 9. The surviving question is as to what multiplier should be applied to work out the total loss of dependency. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 10 in view of the age of the appellant No.2, mother of the deceased although in second schedule under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act a multiplier of 11 is provided in respect of the person aged 50 to 55. We are of the view, in the special facts and circumstances of this case, multiplier of 12 should be applied. Thus, the annual dependency of Rs.75,000/- multiplied by 12 comes to Rs.9,00,000/- at total loss of dependency. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.43,801/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses. The total amount thus comes to Rs.9,45,801/-. 10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs.7,95,801/- is enhanced to Rs.9,45,801/-. The enhanced amount shall bear interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application. The respondent shall be collectively and severally, liable for payment of the said amount. The appellant shall be paid the amount in equal share. The appellant No.2 shall be entitled to receive 50% of her share in the enhanced amount together with interest thereon and the remaining amount shall be deposited in her account in accordance with para 12(c) of the award. The appellant shall be paid the amount in equal share. The appellant No.2 shall be entitled to receive 50% of her share in the enhanced amount together with interest thereon and the remaining amount shall be deposited in her account in accordance with para 12(c) of the award. The appellant No.1 shall also be entitled to receive 50% share in the enhanced amount and the remaining amount shall be invested in an interest bearing account in accordance with Clause (d) of paragraph 12 of the award. There shall be no order as to costs.