Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 313 (TRI)

Nakul Debnath v. Pallav Majumder

2014-08-05

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 11-07-2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 360 of 2006 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- only in favour of the claimants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants are the parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition in which it was alleged that while their deceased son Gautam was walking on the road side, the jeep bearing No. TR-01-B-2616 owned by Pallav Majumder and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited hit him from behind and as a result of the injury sustained, he died at the spot. It was also claimed that their son Gautam was working in a Grill factory as well as a private tutor and was earning more than Rs. 8,500/- per month. 3. The accident was not denied. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 13 taking into consideration the age of the parents and deducted 2/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased and, therefore, assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,06,000/-. 4. Sri B. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 2,000/- per month. He further submits that only 1/3rd should have been deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and not 2/3rd. He lastly submits that the multiplier should have been used keeping in view the age of the deceased, and not the age of the parents. 5. First I shall assess the income of the deceased. There is no manner of doubt that no proper evidence has been led with regard to the income of the deceased. However, it has come on record that he was 19 years old and was studying in MBB College, Agartala. Assuming for the sake of argument that he was a student and was not earning, within a year or two he would have started earning and his income would have been fairly high and in any event, not less than Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month which even a daily labourer would earn at the relevant time. 6. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month which even a daily labourer would earn at the relevant time. 6. Next comes the question as to how the compensation is to be determined. In cases where the claimants are the parents and the deceased was a bachelor, the Courts in the recent past have followed two methods. The first method is that 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased but in that case, the multiplier is applied by taking into consideration the age of the deceased. The second method is that 1/3rd is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased but in this case, the multiplier is applied by keeping in consideration the age of the parents. My experience has been that either of the two systems should be applied and whichever method is applied, there is hardly any difference in the compensation. 7. This Court would like to make it clear that one of the two models should be adopted and a hybrid of both the models should not be adopted because that is what creates problems. 8. If the income is taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month and 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the parents works out to Rs. 1,500/- per month or Rs. 18,000/- per year and if multiplier of 18 is applied, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,24,000/-. If on the other hand, 1/3rd is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs. 24,000/- per annum and in this case, if a multiplier of 13 is applied keeping in view the age of the parents, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,12,000/- which is almost similar. Therefore, the compensation in this regard is assessed at Rs. 3,24,000/-. 9. In addition thereto, the claimants are held entitled to funeral expenses which are assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. The deceased was the only son of the claimants and the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. (3,24,000 + 25,000 + 50,000)=Rs. 3,99,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs). 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,06,000/- to Rs. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. (3,24,000 + 25,000 + 50,000)=Rs. 3,99,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs). 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,06,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-, i.e. by Rs. 2,94,000/-. On the amount of compensation so awarded, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company has not challenged the award and, therefore, it is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within four months from today after deducting/adjusting the amount, if any, already paid/deposited by them along with proof of such earlier deposit. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Send down the lower court records forthwith.