Judgment:
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 31.5.1990 in MVC No.308/95. According to the claimant's case on 5.9.1985 a motor accident had taken' place at about 8.30 a.m. viz., the accident in which the Matador Van bearing No. CNG 9229 which has being used to transport the goods from Shimoga to Agumbe. When it was proceeding between Gajanur Village and Gajanur Dam, a lorry bearing No.MYY 5437 driven by Sri. A.G. Gajendra came from the opposite direction and collided with the Matador Van. The owner of Matador died on the spot, and other 3 persons sustained injuries and the injured persons also made claim petitions. The owner of the Matador who died on the spot, his mother the appellant filed the claim petition which was numbered as 308/85 impleading the respondents as party ops. in that case. The tribunal after framing the issues tried the matter and on the basis of the circumstantial and oral evidences found that accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver as per paragraphs 11 of the decision of the tribunal. Dealing with the claim of the claimants/ appellants who had claimed compensation with reference to the death of Chandrashekara Hebbar, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 8 it assessed the dependency of the claimant of the deceased at Rs. 48,000/-. The tribunal thereafter opined that a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - is to be deducted from that quantum of Rs. 48,000/. The deduction was indicated to be made for used on account of lumpsum payments and after making that deduction of Rs. 18,000/- the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. The tribunal awarded an interest at the rate of 9% on that amount from the date of filing the petition. No-doubt the other injured persons had also filed the claim petitions. There claim petitions have also been 'allowed in part. I am not aware whether the others have filed the appeal, or not. For the present this appeal is confined to the claim made by the mother of the deceased i.e., the owner of the Matador, this claim petition was numbered as MVC No.308/95. The appellant felt aggrieved from the order and the award as they have not been awarded proper compensation as-well-as the deduction was illegally made from the amounts assessed a tentative figure.
2. I have heard Sri P.S. Manjunath as-well-as Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao - learned counsels for petitioner and 3rd respondent respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manjunath submitted that the dependency figure has not been properly fixed and determined. He further submitted that the tribunal had held that the claimant had been dependent on agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that when it was held it had not taken into account that the deceased was the only son and had died in the accident and it was he who used to manage the cultivation etc. The claimant may have to make arrangements and to take assistance of service of some third persons for which she may have to pay and as such at the most she can be said to be dependent on agriculture for a sum of Rs. 250/- per month but as per her statement a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month was her monthly requirement and therefore her dependency on her son's income should have been assessed atleast at Rs. 750/- per month. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that he does not wish to challenge the 8 year multiplier. He further submitted that the Court below as not justified in making a deduction of Rs. 18,000/- towards the lumpsum payment or for lumpsum payments. Mr. Manjunath further contended that no compensation has been awarded with reference to the amount incurred for funeral expenses and atleast a sum of Rs. 3,000/- should have been allowed,
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent hotly contested the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The trial Court has assumed that she required Rs. 1,000/- per month for her maintenance according to her own evidence. This figure is not in dispute, I may take it for the present accepted among the parties. It appears that nothing less than Rs. 1,000/- per month may be needed for her maintenance by the claimant particularly looking to high prices and the fact that she had already discharged her last liability i.e., the marriage of her youngest daughter had already been performed. So-far-as the dependency on the son is concerned and dependency from agricultural income is concerned, in my opinion the dependency on the agricultural income which has been assessed at Rs. 500/- is not correct as she may have to part with the sum when she may have to make arrangements for management of the cultivation and it may not be less than Rs. 250/- per month and therefore she may only get income from agricultural sources to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month. The dependency on the income of her son can be taken to be at Rs. 750/ - per month and be thus assessed at the rate of Rs. 750/- per mensum and her annual dependency can be worked-out to be Rs. 750 x 12 - Rs. 9,000/- per annum and if the multiplier of 8 is applied which has been applied by the tribunal as well, her dependency on her deceased son's income can be worked-out not to be Rs. 48,000/- but 9,000/- multiplied by 8 its i.e. to be Rs. 72,000/ -. The deduction for lumpsum payment which has been made to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- in my opinion is not correct and cannot be justified. In the case of HARDEO KAUR AND ORS. v. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER : [1992]2SCR272 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that such deductions are unjustified. Their Lordships observed vide in Para 7 of the Judgment reading at Page 1263 as under :
'This Court in Motor Owner Insurance Company Ltd. v. J.K. Modi, : [1982]1SCR860 held that the delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation' and added to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In Manju Shri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, : [1977]2SCR944 this Court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the Courts below were not justified in making lump sum deduction in this case.'
6. In the present case, as mentioned earlier, the claim petition had been filed in 1985. It was filed on 26.11.1985 and we are running in 1996, today it is 31st October 1996, even the claim petition had been decided on 31st May, 1990 i.e., after 4 1/2 years. Therefore due to hike in prices and the dwindling nature of the value of rupee, the deductions for lumpsum payments cannot be justified, and that finding or observation of the tribunal as to deduction is modified and set-aside. For my above view I further find support from the decision from the Division bench of the Allahabad High Court as well in the case of U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GAJADHAR SINGH AND OTHERS 1994 ACJ 434.
7. As regards the funeral expenses it appears to have escaped the notice of the tribunal. This should have also been taken into consideration and award should have been made therefore as well. In course of deposition as P.W.5 - Meenakshi has stated that she spent a sum of Rs. 7,000 to 8,000 with reference to funeral and obsequies. No suggestions appears to have been made indicating any lesser sum to have been spent. Definitely after the death of the son funeral ceremony must have taken place as the boy was a major one and the lady must have incurred expenses in relation thereto. In my opinion even if the figure given by the lady be taken to be exaggerated one and excessive she is entitled to be awarded a reasonable amount towards the expenses of funeral and obsequies. Learned Counsel for both the parties suggested that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- will be reasonable. He submitted that in similar cases this Court had always awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. I think it will be just and proper that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- be awarded towards the funeral and other expenses. Thus considered in my opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Order is modified and it is held that the claimant which appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 72,000/- towards the compensation for dependency on son's income. The claimant is further entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with reference to funeral and other expenses. No deduction is to be made from this figure of Rs. 75,000/- to claimant is entitled, awarded to her as compensation on account of lumpsum payment. Thus petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. In my opinion the claimant should be held entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above amount awarded from the date of application for compensation.
8. The appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced rate of interest will be available with respect to enhanced amount. It is open to the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount at the earliest within a period of 3 months and after the amount being deposited it will be open to the claimant to withdraw the amount. Costs of the appeal are made easy.