Judgment:
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur by judgment and award dated 7th October, 2005 passed in Compensation Case No. 80 of 1993. By the said judgment, a sum of Rs. 5,12,180/- has been awarded to the appellant for the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident.
2. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the claimant-appellant and the Insurance Company on the question of quantum of compensation as the parties are not in issue on other facts.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased Jitendra Nath Jha along with his wife, Archana Jha, boarded Tata Maxi 407 at Ghatshila on 29.4.1993 for going to Jamshedpur. It was stated that the driver of the said maxi was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently in high speed. When the said maxi reached near village Kapagora on NH-33, it dashed with the military truck coming from opposite direction, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and the appellant sustained injuries.
4. The appellant's case is that the deceased was a brilliant student and passed Bachelor of Technology with honours from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. The deceased appeared in UPSC Civil Services Examination and on call, he appeared before the Interview Board for service in Hindustan Coppers Limited, a Government of India undertaking. He was selected for appointment and was undergoing training for one year. During the training period, he was drawing his salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2500-4300 and he was getting monthly pay of Rs. 3292/-. It is stated that after completion of training, he would have been promoted to the post of Senior Mining Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 3100-130-5150. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was about 23 years. He died leaving behind his widow, the appellant, and a minor child.
5. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs. 5,12,180/- by recording the following findings:
9. Taking the age of the deceased as 23 years there is multiplier of 17 according to second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act. There is evidence on the record that the deceased had passed Bachelor of Technology of Kharagpur. So he can be said a brilliant student and his career was bright. As such, compensation comes to Rs. 5,02,180/-. The applicant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental shock and agony. But according to second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, maximum amount which is to be paid is a sum of Rs. 5000/-. The claimant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of consortium. But according to second schedule given in Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, maximum amount will be a sum of Rs. 5000/-. As such, applicant can be awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for mental pain and suffering and also a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the loss of consortium. Thus, total amount of compensation will come to Rs. 5,12,180/- (five lakhs twelve thousand one hundred eighty) only. The claimant has claimed future income of the deceased. In view of Section 163-A and second schedule given under the said section, there is multiplier system in ascertaining and determining the compensation and accordingly the compensation has been determined in respect of the death of the deceased Jitendra Nath Jha in Motor Vehicle accident. It has also come in the evidence that the petitioner Smt. Archana Jha is a teacher at Bokaro.
6. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the law while assessing the quantum of compensation. This is a fit case where principles discussed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. : AIR1994SC1631 should be applied. In any view of the matter, if we proceed on the basis that after completion of training, the deceased would have started getting salary of Rs. 5150/-, his annual earning would have been a minimum of Rs. 60,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of the said amount, the total annual dependency comes to Rs. 40,000/-. Admittedly, the deceased was a young boy aged 23 years. If a multiplier of 15 is taken, the amount comes to Rs. Six lakhs. Applying the principles laid in Susamma Thomas's case (supra), a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs would be just and reasonable compensation.
7. Having regard to the facts of the case and having regard to the pain and suffering of the widow and the minor child, in our considered opinion, the compensation amount payable to the appellant cannot and shall not be less than Rs. 12,00,000/-.
8. We, therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the compensation amount to Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs). Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award passed by the Tribunal,
Jaya Roy, J.
9. I agree.