Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 830 (JHR)

Md. Kalim Khan v. Jain Trading Corporation

2008-07-29

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle. Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 38 of 2000 whereby he has assessed compensation of Rs. 9,97,9980/ and holding that it was a case of head on collision, 50% of the compensation amount has been deducted and directed that the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants shall be Rs. 4,98,9801-. The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 2. On 5.1.2000 the claimant-appellant No. 1:and his family members we're going to Barkatha from Hazaribagh by Ambassador car being registration No. BR20A-7557 being driven by one 'Daud Ansari (deceased). The car was going in normal, speed and upwards towards Barkatha. When the car reached near village Srinagar a tanker bearing registration No. BEY-6341 coming in very high speed and in negligent manner dashed the said car in full speed as a result of which the gate of the car opened and the occupants of the car sustained injuries and died in the car itself. The claimants' case was that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker, which dashed against the car. Several claim cases were filed and we have been informed that those cases have been settled by the Insurance Company and compensation amount have been paid. 3. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and award on two grounds. Firstly, learned counsel contended that since accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the tanker, which is a heavy vehicle, the liability ought not to have been apportioned in between the tanker and the car. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the compensation amount and has committed error of law in taking average income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of annual income. 4. So far, second ground taken by the appellants is concerned, from perusal of the judgment it appears that several documents including income tax returns were filed and exhibited by the claimants showing the income of the deceased. The Tribunal found that in the assessment year 1996-1997 the annual income of the deceased after deducting tax comes to Rs. 4. So far, second ground taken by the appellants is concerned, from perusal of the judgment it appears that several documents including income tax returns were filed and exhibited by the claimants showing the income of the deceased. The Tribunal found that in the assessment year 1996-1997 the annual income of the deceased after deducting tax comes to Rs. 40,400/-, whereas for the assessment year 1999-2000, the gross annual income of the deceased as shown in the income tax return was Rs. 1,81,240/-, out of which the net payable tax was amounting to Rs. 45,879/-. In this way, after deducting the tax, the annual income of the deceased for the financial year 1999-2000 comes to Rs. 1,35,361/-. The Tribunal added the income of these two financial years and divided it by two for the purpose of ascertaining the average annual income of the deceased and taking the same as annual average income of the deceased, compensation was assessed. 5. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the procedure for determining the annual income of the deceased. Admittedly, the last income tax return filed by the deceased was for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the income after deducting net tax was Rs. 1,35,361/-. As a matter of fact, this income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal instead of average income of Rs. 87,880.50 paise. However, for safe side we may take annual income of the deceased at a lump sum of Rs. 1 lac. After deducting 1/3rd out of the aforesaid amount, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs, 66,000/-, which shall be the annual dependency. 6. Undisputedly, the deceased was aged about 22 years. Hence, by taking 17 multiplier, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 11,22,000/-. In our view, therefore, a lump sum amount of Rs. 11 lacs as compensation in case of death of a young boy aged about 22 years having annual income of Rs. 1 lac should be just and reasonable. 7. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in apportioning the amount in equal shares. It appears that the Tribunal has pointed out that the offending vehicle was a heavy tanker and by reason of the aforesaid accident, most of the occupants of the car died either at the spot or at the hospital. It appears that the Tribunal has pointed out that the offending vehicle was a heavy tanker and by reason of the aforesaid accident, most of the occupants of the car died either at the spot or at the hospital. It is, therefore, clear that the tanker was at such a high speed that it could not mitigate the accident and damages resulting into death of the occupants of the car at the spot. Besides the above, in case of head on collision between the two vehicles, one heavy tanker and an-other being light car, the apportionment should not have been 50%-50%. In any case, we are of the view that, the liability upon the tanker should be at least 75% and 25% on the car. 8. Having regard to the nature of the accident and the death of the occupants of the car, the owner and insurer of the tanker must be saddled with 75% liability. In this way, if 75% out of Rs. 11,22,000/is taken, the liability comes to Rs. 8,42,000/- upon the owner and insurer of the tanker. The rest amount should be paid by the owner of the car. 9. It is made clear that the amount shall be paid jointly to the father and mother of the deceased. The Insurance Company is further directed to pay the compensation amount minus the amount already paid to the parents of the deceased by handing over cheque before the Lok Adalat, which is scheduled to be held on 23.8.2008 in the High Court premises. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal is disposed of.