Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 632 (BOM)

Om Wati v. Dan Singh

2007-04-26

H.L.GOKHALE, PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2007
H.L. GOKHALE, C.J.:- None is present for the appellant. Heard Mr. Vinay Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. This appeal by a widow of a person, who died in a motor accident seeks an enhancement in the amount of compensation, which came to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ghaziabad. 3. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows. The husband of the appellant was driving a scooter when he was hit by a truck, which was insured with respondent No.3. The New India Assurance Company. This happened on 25-5-1985 and husband of the appellant died thereafter. 4. The appellant filed a claim petition for compensation. This claim has come to be allowed by an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad, vide judgment and order dated 21-9-1988. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.l,59,209.50/-, as compensation. The appellant is not satisfied with this amount and, therefore, she has •filed this appeal. 5. Since nobody was present to represent the appellant, we ourselves perused the records of the case and heard Mr. Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Inasmuch as the question is only with respect to the quantum, we looked into the necessary facts, as appearing on the records. When we see the records, what we found is that the learned Judge has considered the fact that the appellant's husband was an employee in a Factory. The learned Judge has noted that his salary appears to be in the range of Rs.2208/per month. The deceased died at the age of 48 years. The learned Judge has, therefore, considered his life expectancy of at least 11 years more and accordingly, arrived at the figure of compensation. He has, however, taken his contribution to the family as half and expenditure on himself as half of the income. When we went through the judgment, we found that the judgment very much records the fact of his parents being alive and both being in the range of 75 years of age also. This being the position, it was not correct on the part of the learned Judge/Tribunal to take the view that the deceased person was spending half amount on himself. The normal yardstick applied is that all such persons are supposed to be spending 1/3rd on their own and 2/3rd as contribution to the family. This being the position, it was not correct on the part of the learned Judge/Tribunal to take the view that the deceased person was spending half amount on himself. The normal yardstick applied is that all such persons are supposed to be spending 1/3rd on their own and 2/3rd as contribution to the family. In the present case, after considering all the relevant factors, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant/ widow was entitled to only half of the monthly contribution, which her husband was expected to be making to the family expenditure. The learned Judge has, therefore, arrived at the figure of Rs.l,59,209.50/-, and awarded the same to the appellant, who had filed the claim petition. 6. In our view, there was no reason for the learned Judge to depart from the normal practice. From the records, as seen, it is clear that the appellant was not the only person dependent of the deceased and in such a case surely, she will be entitled for 2/3rd of the total income. If we proceed on this footing, the appellant, who had been paid the amount ofRs.l,59,209.50/-, ought to have been paid in the range of Rs.2,12,412/-. The appellant is, therefore, to receive the difference of Rs.53,203/-, which we round up as Rs.55,000/-. 7. The learned Judge has not awarded the interest to the appellant. Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 lays down as follows: "110-CC. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.- Where any court or Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act such Court or Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such (,late not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in that behalf." 8. From the above provision, it is clear that the Tribunal has discretion to award interest in addition to the amount of compensation. This can be done by simple interest. In the facts of present case, we find that the appellant had been paid Rs.55,000/-less. She ought to be provided interest on the amount from the date of the application. She ought also to be provided interest on the amount, which has been awarded, which also should be paid to her from the date of the application. 9. In the facts of present case, we find that the appellant had been paid Rs.55,000/-less. She ought to be provided interest on the amount from the date of the application. She ought also to be provided interest on the amount, which has been awarded, which also should be paid to her from the date of the application. 9. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal to the aforesaid extent and enhance the compensation payable to the appellant by Rs.55,000/-. The appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% on this amount from the date of the application. The respondents will pay interest on Rs.l,59,209.50l/- also at the rate of 10% from the date of application. The respondents will pay simple interest. Respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Company Ltd. will deposit this additional amount of compensation in the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ghaziabad, within four weeks from today. The Tribunal will send a notice to the appellant to collect the amount, which has been so enhanced. 10. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.