Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3653 (ALL)

BINDU DEVI v. NARAINI DEVI

2016-11-08

K.J.THAKER, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—By way of this appeal, claimants have challenged award and decree passed by Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 of 1988. Claimants are aggrieved by amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal for death of sole bread earner. Insurance company has not challenged award. 2. Parties are referred as claimants/appellants and Insurance Company/respondents respectively. 3. The undisputed facts are that incident took place on 15.2.1988 wherein deceased died. Deceased Raj Kumar Singh was aged about 20 years of age is also not in dispute. Deceased has left behind him 8 heirs i.e. widow, two minor daughters, widowed mother, brothers and sisters, who have claimed as claimants. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,240/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The incident occurred on 15.2.1988. Claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 20,79,000/-. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,240/-. 4. As far as other issues are concerned i.e. negligence of driver, liability of Insurance company and involvement of vehicle are not in dispute. 5. The only issue is regarding compensation awarded by Tribunal, for which we are addressed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that Tribunal erred in giving multiplier of 18 instead of 30. It is submitted that Tribunal has wrongly deducted 20% on the basis that as the amount is awarded as lump sum relying on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company v. Suresh Bhalla and others, AIR 1991 Allahabad 43, has deducted the said amount namely Rs. 34,560/- for uncertainty of life, which is not permissible. Tribunal has also not granted any amount under the head of consortium or love and affection for children. Lastly, it is submitted that Tribunal has not added anything by way of future loss of income. Learned counsel for claimant has submitted that Tribunal erred in not considering evidence of widow, who stated on oath that deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- by way of agricultural vocation and Rs. 3,000/- by way of selling carpets and druggets. With regard to income of deceased, claimants produced a certificate showing that deceased Raj Kumar Singh was working on commission basis at M/s. Singh Carpet, Pathehara, Mirzapur and his annual income was Rs. 2,000/- by way of agricultural vocation and Rs. 3,000/- by way of selling carpets and druggets. With regard to income of deceased, claimants produced a certificate showing that deceased Raj Kumar Singh was working on commission basis at M/s. Singh Carpet, Pathehara, Mirzapur and his annual income was Rs. 60,000/- from selling of said carpets, however, in paragraph 6 it is stated, but contrary thereto in claim petition itself the claimants said in para 6 that income from selling of carpets was Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Moreover, in para 5 of claim petition name of any Firm in which deceased was working was not mentioned. The widow P.W. 2 accepted in her cross-examination that deceased was also engaged in vocation of agricultural and agriculture work. The said agriculture income is still continuing even after his death. Income of deceased from agriculture was shown at Rs. 2000/- per month, but no evidence in this regard was adduced. Tribunal has felt that there are contradictory statements as P.W. 1 was unable to show that deceased was earning Rs. 60,000/- from selling of carpets and held that the income of agriculture is still continuing. Tribunal held that the income was not proved and, therefore, income of deceased was considered as Rs. 1,200/- per month. Deceased would be spending Rs. 400/- on himself and giving Rs. 800/- to his family members per month and that is how by giving multiplier of 18 an amount of Rs. 1,72,800/- was awarded. 7. In our view minimum wages in 1988 were Rs. 60/- per day and applying the same it would come to Rs. 1,800/- per month. If 1/3 amount is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased the income would come Rs. 1,200/- per month, which should be available to estate and thereto we add 50% in light of judgement in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 . The estate would be entitled to compensation Rs. 1,800/- per month to which multiplier of 18 considering the age of deceased would be applied. Hence, claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,800x12x18 i.e. Rs. 3,88,800/- alongwith 12% interest. We also find that award of Rs. 2,000/- towards love and affection is on lesser side. We award Rs. 25,000/- under this head. 8. 1,800/- per month to which multiplier of 18 considering the age of deceased would be applied. Hence, claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,800x12x18 i.e. Rs. 3,88,800/- alongwith 12% interest. We also find that award of Rs. 2,000/- towards love and affection is on lesser side. We award Rs. 25,000/- under this head. 8. The deduction of 20% by Tribunal has no basis and is arbitrary and against the principles now enunciated by Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), hence it has to be set aside. The finding that claimants did not pursue the matter before Tribunal for 17 months, the deduction of interest for 17 months also has no basis going through the records. Hence, the said deduction is also set aside 9. The impugned award is modified. The claimants would be entitled to Rs. 3,88,800+25,000+2,500 (towards funeral charges as awarded by Tribunal) (Total Rs. 4,16,300/-) with interest from date of filing of petition till date. Amount already deposited be adjusted from additional amount. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed with costs to the extent of success throughout.