Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 182 (ORI)

DAMODAR SWAIN v. RAM KISHORE BAJPAYEE

2014-03-19

RAGHUBIR DASH

body2014
ORDER Raghubir Dash, J. - Being dissatisfied with the award passed in Misc. Case No. 762 of 1994 by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack on 12.1.2012, the claimant therein has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant-claimant filed the Misc. Case u/s 166 of the Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the death of his 24 year old son Manua @ Manoranjan @ Niroja Kumar Swain in a vehicular accident taking place on 24.9.1994 asserting that at the relevant time the deceased, a bachelor, was working as a Manager in Binapani Travels having monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. Respondent No. 1, the legal heir of the registered owner, did not contest the case. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, however, contested the case denying the allegations made by the claimant. The contesting parties adduced evidence and on evaluation of the same, the learned Tribunal observed that the deceased's monthly income should be equal to that of an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. Accordingly, he fixed the monthly income at Rs. 1,800/-. Deducting 50% of the income towards the deceased's personal and living expenses on the ground that he was a bachelor and adopting multiplier of 13 and further adding a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards funeral expenses as well as loss of estate, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,900/- as compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company with 6% interest per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition (excluding the period from 29.11.2000 to 30.10.2011). 2. The appeal is filed on the ground that the award passed is grossly inadequate and the claimant-appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month when the claimant has adduced evidence saying that it was Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the rate of interest should have been 12% instead of 6% as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. 1,800/- per month when the claimant has adduced evidence saying that it was Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the rate of interest should have been 12% instead of 6% as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal memo has further submitted that the claimant is entitled to compensation on account of possible future prospects and the multiplier should have been 18 instead of 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supports the findings of the learned Tribunal and submits that the award is not liable to be interfered with. So far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has observed that save and except bald assertion, there is no corroborating evidence showing that the deceased was working as a Manager and getting Rs. 3,000/- as monthly salary. Relying on Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even the income of an unskilled labourer should be taken as Rs. 100/- per day. But, it is worth mentioning that in the reported case the deceased had died on 12.4.2004 whereas the deceased in the present case died in the year 1994. Therefore, the standard adopted in Laxmi Devi's case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. Considering the date of death, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income as adopted by the learned Tribunal is quite reasonable and, therefore, it is accepted. 4. With regard to addition to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, wherein it is laid down that a person who is either self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident, there should be an addition of 30 per cent of the fixed income towards his/her future prospects. However, in Rajesh and Others Vs. However, in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others the apex Court has further laid down that in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased is below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Applying the said principle, this Court considers it just and proper to add 50% of the fixed income of the deceased while computing loss of dependency. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,700/- per month. Undisputedly, the deceased was a bachelor. So, there should be deduction of 50% of his income towards his personal and living expenses. Allowing 50% deduction for personal and living expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes down to Rs. 1,350/- and the yearly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,200/-. 5. Now coming to the multiplier to be adopted in this case, it is found from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal has adopted 13 as the multiplier. This is determined on the basis of the age of the claimant. Relying on Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that the multiplier is to be selected basing on the age of the claimant and not on the age of the deceased. But, in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others the Hon'ble apex Court has observed as follows: The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. Therefore, in view of such clear observation by the Apex Court in its later judgment, the multiplier is to be determined on the basis of the deceased's age. The selection of multiplier is to be done in the light of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, There is no dispute that the deceased died at the age of 24. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier, as laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), would be 18. The selection of multiplier is to be done in the light of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, There is no dispute that the deceased died at the age of 24. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier, as laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), would be 18. Thus, applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency is worked out at Rs. 2,91,600/-. tn addition to this amount, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate to which there is no challenge. 6. Coming to the rate of interest payable on the awarded amount, this Court is of the considered view that interest at the rate of 6% as awarded by the learned Tribunal not being grossly inadequate, needs no enhancement. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified to the extent that instead of a sum of Rs. 1,44,900/-, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 2,96,100/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety-six thousand one hundred) as compensation. Rest part of the award remains unaltered. However, with regard to the amount to be invested in, long term deposit, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Partly Allowed