Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

LEELA DEVI v. DIWAN SINGH

2013-03-04

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli in M.A.C.P. Case No.51 of 2005, whereby the claim petition has been partly allowed and the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 were directed to pay Rs.87,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% to the claimants from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.4.2005 deceased Prakash Chandra was going in Mahindra Jeep bearing no.UP-01-927 from Ghat Bazaar to his Village Jokhna. The aforesaid vehicle met with accident at 01:15 PM due to rash and negligence driving due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was 20 years of age. He was a confectioner and was also doing agriculture work and from this he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimant filed claim petition for a sum of Rs.8,45,000/-. 3. The opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and admitted the accident. It has been averred by them that at time of accident, respondent no.4 and 5 were the registered owner of the vehicle. 4. The opposite party no.3, National Insurance Company, also filed its written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven against the conditions of insurance policy and that other documents like registration, permit, insurance policy were invalid at the time of accident and that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence and that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The opposite party no.4, owner of the vehicle, also filed his written statement and alleged that he had sold the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 on 4.3.2005 and all the papers of the vehicle were also handed over to opposite party no.1. 6. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed following issues for consideration:- i) Whether on 30.4.2005 at 1:15 APM, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle no. UP 01 927 the said vehicle met with an accident in which Prakash Chandra died? ii) Whether the vehicle was not being driven as per the conditions of policy? UP 01 927 the said vehicle met with an accident in which Prakash Chandra died? ii) Whether the vehicle was not being driven as per the conditions of policy? iii) Whether on the date of accident the owner of the vehicle was opposite party no.1 or opposite party no.4? If so, its effect. iv) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what relief? 7. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The learned tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 87,000/- as compensation against the opposite party no.1, 2 and 4 along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded is on lesser side. Learned Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. 11. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue of compensation on issue no.4. The learned Tribunal held that the claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased hence the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. But, in the present scenario, and in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Mayawati and others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. And another [2006(2) U.D., 657], the notional income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12. Learned counsel has further argued that the deceased was unmarried person and the multiplier ought to have been applied on the age of mother. 13. This argument of the learned counsel has force. This fact is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and mother and father are claimants. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of his death and adopted a multiplier of 8 on the age of father. 13. This argument of the learned counsel has force. This fact is not disputed that the deceased was unmarried and mother and father are claimants. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of his death and adopted a multiplier of 8 on the age of father. In view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), the multiplier should be applied on the age of mother, who is stated to be 45 years of age at that time and since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 14. Thus, after deducting 50% income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,000/- and by applying multiplier of 14 on the age of mother, who is stated to be 45 years of age, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,52,000/- 15. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of Estate. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,52,000/-+Rs.2,000/-+ Rs.5,000/- = 2,59,000/- 16. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli in M.A.C.P. Case No.51 of 2005, is set aside. The claimants/appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.87,000/- as has been awarded by the tribunal. The claimants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment.