Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1730 (ALL)

BABY v. PREMPAL

2017-07-27

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned award dated 27.5.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 371 of 2007 (Smt. Baby and others v. Prempal and others). 2. The brief facts as stated before the Tribunal are that deceased Sunil Kumar was the resident of Village-Kulgaon, Police Station-Maharajpur, Kanpur Nagar. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 30 years, who died in a road accident on 21.4.2017 on account of rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle/truck bearing registration No. H.R.-55B/0186 by the driver. 3. The FIR was registered with the Police Station-Maharajpur vide Crime No. 141/2007 under Sections-279, 338, 304A and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. After investigation in the case charge-sheet was filed by the police. Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased. At the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 the insurance company. Claimants appellants preferred Claim Petition No. 371 of 2007 claiming compensation for Rs. 12,64,000/-. 4. In support of claim two witnesses including Smt. Baby the wife of deceased were examined. The Tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants held that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 21.4.2017. Accident had occured due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck as regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs. 36,000/- per annum, after deducting one-third (Rs.12,000/-) of the said amount as the personal and living expenses of the deceased, dependency was assumed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,12,000. The other claims were also awarded being Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,19,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants. The Tribunal directed the payment of interest in the amount of compensation at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 5. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,19,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants. The Tribunal directed the payment of interest in the amount of compensation at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 and according to Sarla Verma’s case, the multiplier of 17 should be applied. Learned counsel has further submitted that Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the compensation on lower side to the dependents of the deceased. The award therefore is to be enhanced. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants is just and proper. Present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and another, 2009 (3) AWC 2138 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21 has held that : “We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we find that multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied, which was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier, we are of the view that award needs to be modified. We accordingly provide that the multiplier of 17 should be applied. Thus the income of the deceased comes to: 36,000-1/3 (12,000) = 24,000 x 17 = 4,08,000 11. In addition to that the appellants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and 2,500/- for the loss of estate. Therefore, the appellants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,17,500/-. The said sum shall carry the interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.