Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 470 (HP)

Pappi Devi v. Kali Ram

2008-09-15

SANJAY KAROL

body2008
JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) - The appellants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in terms of Award dated 9.10.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 6 of 2000, titled as Smt. Pappi Devi and others v. Shri Kuli Ram and others, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,58,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till payment. 2. Vehicle being owned by Shri Kuli Ram, respondent No. 1 herein and driven by Shri Ranjit Singh, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition (his name was deleted vide order 27.5.2004) and insured with Oriental Insurance Company respondent No. 3 herein, met with an accident on 7.12.2000 in which Shri Babu Ram died. An FIR was registered and criminal proceedings were initiated. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs. 8 lacs. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether deceased Shri Babu Ram had died due to rash and negligent driving of Shri Ranjit Singh, driver of tractor No. HP-24-2856, as alleged ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the respondents ? OPP 3. Whether the tractor driver did not have valid driving licence on the date of accident, as alleged, if so its effect ? OPR-3 4. Whether there has been no contract of insurance in between the insured and the Insurance Company, as alleged ? OPR-3 5. Whether the tractor, in question, was being driven in contravention of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and insurance policy, as alleged ? OPR-3 6. Relief. 5. Evidence was led by the parties and after appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died in an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-24-2856; the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence; the vehicle being insured and in the absence of any breach of policy, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation awarded. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 50/- per da and after making necessary deduction for self-maintenance, the monthly income for the purpose of dependency was worked out to be Rs. 1100/- and by applying the multiplier of 12, a sum of Rs. 1,58,400/- was awarded to the claimant. 6. This is the claimant’s appeal. No appeal or cross-examinations have been filed by any of the respondents. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. The scope of the appeal is narrow and confined to enhancement of the determined amount of compensation only. 9. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jashuben and others, 2008(4) SCC 162, after considering its earlier decisions in N. Sivammal v. Pandian Roadways Corpn., 1985(1) SCC 18, G.M. Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994(2) SCC 176, Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996(3) SCC 179, Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001(3) SCC 714, T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005(6) SCC 236, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005(10) SCC 720, U.P. SRTC v. Krishna Bala, 2006(6) SCC 249, MD. T.N. STC v. Sripriya, 2007(13) SCC 641 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008(2) SCC 763, has held that the amount of compensation indisputably should be determined having regard to the pecuniary loss caused to the defendants by reason of the death of the victim. The earning of the deceased at the time of the accident including future prospects within the legal principals have to be considered. 10. The Court after approving its earlier views has held as under :- “The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency for the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants which ever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.” 11. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.” 11. It has come in the statement of claimant Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) that the deceased, while working as a labourer and also selling milk was having an income of Rs. 4000/- per month. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on this point at all. But the fact of the matter is that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the income. This is the only evidence with regard to income of the deceased on record. 12. It has come on record that the deceased was illiterate and working as a labourer. In my view, his income determined by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 50/- per day, is on the lower side. Taking the deceased to be employed as a daily wager, the minimum wages paid by the Government in the year 2001 to the labourers was more than Rs. 70/- per day. This is not disputed at the Bar. Therefore, the same can be made the basis for determining the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 70 x 30 = Rs. 2100/- and after deducing 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs. 700/-, for the purpose of dependency is determined as Rs. 1400/-. 13. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘12’. In the present case, the deceased was a young man of 22 years. The wife-claimant No. 1 was just 20 years of age, son-claimant No. 2 minor and the mother-claimant No. 3 was just about 49 years. After the death of the deceased another son was born. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the claimants, in my view, the multiplier needs to be increased to ‘17’. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified and it is held that the deceased is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1400/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 2,85,600/-. 14. From the record, it is also evident that interest has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the award. I see no reason as to why the same be not awarded from the date of the filing of the claim petition. 1400/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 2,85,600/-. 14. From the record, it is also evident that interest has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the award. I see no reason as to why the same be not awarded from the date of the filing of the claim petition. Keeping in view the latest trend of the Apex Court and as per the provisions of Section 171 of the act, it would be just and fair if the interest @9% is awarded from the date of the petition till the realization of the amount. Ordered accordingly. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. M.R.B. ———————