Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 488 (UTT)

Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar

2013-07-25

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. All these three appeals are directed against award dated 06.07.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- with 5% interest thereon, as compensation to the claimants, and directed that 50% of the sum shall be paid by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and remaining 50% shall be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the Tribunal. 3) Brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2003, at about 1:15 p.m., claimants’ son Kunal Rana alongwith his relative Puneet Verma was going from Roorkee to Ghaziabad in motorcycle bearing Registration No. UA08-B- 2613. It is alleged by the claimants that a bus bearing Registration No. UP15Q-9676 belonging to Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed at the motorcycle near Partapur, opposite Jain Hotel. Consequently, the motorcyclist got disbalanced and another vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264, which was also being driven rashly and negligently, crushed Kunal Rana, who suffered injuries and died of the same. According to the claimants, deceased was earning Rs. 22,500/- per month. With these pleadings, the claimants (parents of the deceased) claimed Rs. 38,74,100/- as compensation. 4) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation contested the claim petition and filed its written statement alleging that the motorcyclist was at fault, and the driver of the answering respondent’s driver was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle. Respondent No.5 (owner of the truck) also contested the claim petition, and pleaded that it was not the truck driver, who was at fault but the driver of the bus. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., with whom the truck was insured pleaded that the vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was not being driven with valid papers. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., with whom motorcycle was insured also filed its written statement. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., with whom the truck was insured pleaded that the vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was not being driven with valid papers. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., with whom motorcycle was insured also filed its written statement. 5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:- 1) Whether on 22.06.2003, at about 1:15 p.m., when the deceased (Kunal Rana) was going on motorcycle bearing Registration UA08-B-2613, the bus bearing Registration No. UP 15Q-9676 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, and consequently, dashed at the motorcycle, whereafter, the motorcyclist got further dashed by another vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264, due to which, the motorcyclist (Kunal Rana) died of the injuries suffered by him in the accident? 2) Whether the truck bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was being driven with valid driving license by its driver? 3) Whether the motorcyclist himself was at fault at the time of accident? 4) To what amount of compensation, and from whom, the claimants are entitled? 6) After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- as amount of compensation to the claimants holding that the drivers of the bus and the truck were at fault, as such, each one of them was liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,405/- per month and applied multiplier of 17, after deducting half of the income, which the deceased would have spent on himself, awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by award dated 06.07.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004, AO No. 544 of 2006, was filed by the claimants, AO No. 604 of 2006 was filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and AO No. 146 of 2007 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 7) On behalf of the claimants, it is argued before this Court that the Tribunal has erred in law in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased as shown in the salary slip. The last salary slip of the deceased (Kunal Rana), who was working with the private concern i.e. Wipro Spectramind Services Private Limited shows that in the month of May 2003, his earning has been shown as Rs. The last salary slip of the deceased (Kunal Rana), who was working with the private concern i.e. Wipro Spectramind Services Private Limited shows that in the month of May 2003, his earning has been shown as Rs. 19,253/- but in the said sum apart from including his basic salary and admissible allowances, travelling allowance, medical reimbursement, rewards and incentives are added to it. The Tribunal has rightly held that compensatory allowances like medical reimbursement and travelling allowance, reward or incentive cannot be said to be the part of his regular salary received as an employee. The pay slip of May 2003, issued by the employer to Kunal Rana (deceased) which is paper No. 17C/2 shows that for said month the deceased had received Rs. 3,433/- as basic pay, Rs. 2,060/- as House Rent Allowance, Rs. 800/- as conveyance allowance, Rs. 1,555/- as other allowances and Rs. 1,250/- as special allowance (total Rs. 9,098). As such the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs. 9,098/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,09,176/- per annum. 8) But the Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency of the claimants, who are parents, at half of the income of the deceased. In Sarla Verma & others Vs. D.T.C. & others 2009 (2) T.A.C. page 677 (Supreme Court), the Apex Court has held that in the case of parents of the bachelor, their dependency shall be assessed at 50% of the income of the deceased. As such, the financial loss suffered by the claimants (parents of the deceased) comes out to be Rs. 54,588/- per annum. 9) The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 for the claimants, which is not just and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the age of the parents and the principle of law laid down in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and Another (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 731, at the most, multiplier of 10 can be applied for the parents, as there is always possibility of bachelor son of getting married. In the present case, deceased was aged 25 years, as such, applying the multiplier of 10, the total financial loss suffered by the claimants is Rs. 5,45,880/-. Adding Rs. 5000/- loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes out to Rs. 5,70,880/-. In the present case, deceased was aged 25 years, as such, applying the multiplier of 10, the total financial loss suffered by the claimants is Rs. 5,45,880/-. Adding Rs. 5000/- loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes out to Rs. 5,70,880/-. 10) This Court agrees with the Tribunal that since from the evidence on record, the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. bus bearing Registration No. UP15Q-9676 and truck bearing Registration No. HR 46/8264 were found rash and negligent, as such, each one of its owners has 50% of the liability. It is also established on the record that the vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. HR46/8264 was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident, as such, the liability on behalf of the owner of the truck is to be discharged by said insurance company. However, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal should have awarded interest not less than 6% per annum in the facts and circumstances of the case payable by the parties concerned (as above) on the amount of compensation awarded. 11) Accordingly, impugned award dated 06.07.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004, is modified, and it is directed that Rs. 5,70,880/- shall be paid to the claimants as amount of compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum thereon, from the date of presentation of claim petition, till the amount deposited. 50% of the sum awarded (as modified by this Court) shall be paid by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and rest of the 50% sum shall be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as directed by the Tribunal. The amount already deposited shall be adjusted. The statutory deposit made before this Court shall be remitted by the Registry to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar (in connection with Motor Accident Claim Case No. 06 of 2004). All the three appeals stand disposed of accordingly.