Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 268 (UTT)

Mohan Ram v. Kumaon Motor Adarsh Yatayat Co. Ltd.

2016-06-26

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals, titled above, are being adjudicated by this common judgment because those have arisen out of the same accident, wherein the two youths, running in or around their late teens, passed away, and on the petitions filed by their respective parents, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1.20 lakh and Rs.2.39 lakh respectively along with 6 percent simple interest per annum. 2. The accident took place on 22.5.2009 when some persons, after attending the solemnization of a marriage, were returning by Bus No.UP07-G-6255. At about 8:30 PM in the hill roads, the said vehicle fell down in a gorge causing injuries to Mr. Harish Ram and Mr. Lalit Arya, for whom M.A.C.P. Nos.116/2009 and 143/2009 were instituted by their respective parents. Feeling highly dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, these appeals have been filed before the Court. 3. Learned Counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellants, have contended that the Tribunal has committed manifest error by taking the age of parents of deceased into consideration for determining the multiplier whereas such factor should have been taken into account considering the age of the respective youths. That apart, it has also been argued that the income of both the deceased, which was disclosed to be Rs.4,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, by their claimants in their pleadings and averments, has also not been considered, rather the Tribunal has taken into account the notional income for applying the multiplier. 4. Reliance has been placed before this Court on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Munna Lal Jain & another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & others’ (2015) 6 SCC 347 ¸ wherein, it was held that ‘in order to determine the just compensation, even the future prospects of the self-employed persons should be taken into consideration’. 5. However, in the opinion of this Court, the precedent, so relied, is at all not applicable in the present controversy for the simple reason that the factual aspects as regards the age and earning of the deceased are quite different. In the said case, the deceased, who was self-employed, was 30 years of age whereas in the case in hand, the deceased youths have just crossed their age of minority and even they may be below than that and running in their teens still. In the said case, the deceased, who was self-employed, was 30 years of age whereas in the case in hand, the deceased youths have just crossed their age of minority and even they may be below than that and running in their teens still. Further, no proof has been brought on record by the claimants/appellants as regards the earning of their sons in the remote hilly regions where unemployment pervades with prominence and that too at such a tender age of 18 years or around. Thus, as far as the multiplier factor is concerned, in such matters, the average age of the parents is always considered and that has again been ratified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another’ 2010 (2) Uttarakhand Decisions 527, wherein the celebrated judgments of the same Court, in ‘Sarla Verma’, ‘Susamma Thomas’ and other matters, were relied on. It was held in the said judgment that ‘in a case, where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of deceased, is to be taken into account for the capitalization of the lost dependency.’ 6. Here, the fact which also cannot be lost sight of is that nothing has been brought on the record by the claimants of the case to show the conclusive proof about the age of their respective deceased sons and in the similar manner, there is no evidence available in the file showing the age of parents; even they have not disclosed such age in their pleadings of their respective petitions. 7. In the given set of facts, it is an established principle of law that a child who is just running or crossing the age of minority and is a bachelor, in that case, even assuming that he might be earning something, then the established norm is that he should have spent at least one-half of his earning towards his personal expenses. But in the present case, the Tribunal concerned has been liberal enough to make only 1/3rd deduction on this score. But in the present case, the Tribunal concerned has been liberal enough to make only 1/3rd deduction on this score. So, the contention put forth by learned Counsels for the appellants, that nothing has been granted towards the funeral expenses and loss of love and affection, is wholly untenable because if the calculation of compensation is made in that light, then the total quantum would go much lesser than what has been awarded. 8. For the reasons, as set forth hereinabove, I do not find any merit in both the appeals, titled above. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed affirming judgment and orders under challenge. 9. Amount of statutory deposit deposited by the appellants be returned to them along with the interest which it has earned. 10. A copy of this judgment along with the lower court records of both the cases be sent back to the Tribunal concerned.