Satya Prakash Pathak, J.
1. These two Misc. appeals under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of award have been filed against one and the same award dated 16.3.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in MAC Case Nos. 812/91 (old No. 394/88), Alok Kumar v. Prem Singh and Ors. and 103/93 (old No. 502/88) Smt. Koyall and Ors. v. Prem Singh and Ors. whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 69,600 and Rs. 60,000 respectively in both these appeals. The appellants in both the appeals have prayed for awarding the amount of compensation as was originally claimed by them in the claim petitions filed before the learned Tribunal with suitable rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. For disposal of these appeals, I take the facts of both the appeals one by one.
(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 405/1993, Alok Kumar v. Prem Singh and Ors.
2. The facts in nutshell as have been stated in the claim petition are that the mother of appellant Smt. Tara Devi was travelling in Bus No. HYG 4144 on 19.3.1988, at about 8.15 p.m.
3. Truck bearing No. HRU 8213 coming from Delhi side driven in a very fast speed in rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus in which his mother was travelling and which resulted in an accident causing grievious injuries to her and she ultimately died. A report of the accident was lodged under Sections 379, 304A, I.P.C. and after investigation challan was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, District Jaipur and a Case No. 71/88 was registered. It was further stated in the claim petition by applicant Alok Kumar that his mother was healthy and stout lady who was a perfect housewife and was having good knowledge of tailoring. It was stated that the applicant was dependent on her as his father had expired earlier to that on 12.10.1985. She was having an income of about Rs. 1,000 per month and due to untimely said demise of her mother the loss caused is impossible to be compensated, however, he claimed a sum of Rs. 4,52,000 under different heads with interest @ Rs. 18% per annum.
4. The respondents non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the truck filed their reply to the claim petition and pleaded that the truck in question was being driven in a moderate speed and while it was passing by the side of the bus, the deceased, who was vomiting outside the bus-window was injured due to her head being entangled between truck and the bus for which the driver of the bus was responsible. It was also stated that the compensation amount claimed was exorbitant for which there was no justification or basis. They denied their responsibility for the accident and pleaded that even if driver of the truck is found to be responsible then too the truck being insured, the Insurance Company was liable for payment of the compensation amount. They prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against them with costs.
5. Non-applicant respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company, with which the truck was insured, in its reply before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal raised objection that the owner of the truck No. HRU 8312 had not informed them about the accident as such award against them could not be passed and the claim petition filed was liable to be rejected. An objection with regard to the term of policy was also raised that it was the duty of the owner of the truck to prove that at the time of accident the truck was being driven by a person holding valid driving licence else the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate. A plea in respect of exaggerated amount of compensation amount was taken and the income and age of the deceased as stated in the claim petition was denied.
6. In the reply on behalf of non-applicant respondent Nos. 5 and 6 it has come that at the time of accident the bus, in which the deceased was travelling, was on its side and seeing the truck coming in fast speed rashly the driver of the bus taken the vehicle on Katcha path on the left side even then the truck passed touching the bus and one boy and a lady whose heads were outside the windows received injuries and died at the spot. Rash and negligent driving by the bus driver was denied and the reason for the accident was stated to be the mistake and the negligence of truck driver. Prayer for rejection of case against non-applicant respondent No. 5 was made.
(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 406/1993 Smt. Koyali and Ors. v. Prem Singh and Ors.
7. The facts, in short, are that one Omprakash, aged 20 years also died in the aforesaid accident, who at the relevant time was carrying the remains of his late father to Haridwar. It was stated in the claim petition that when the bus reached near village Dhand at that time the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a fast speed rashly and negligently and the bus collided with truck No. HRU 8123 coming from opposite direction which was also driven rashly and negligently and that resulted in grievious injuries to Om Prakash, who died at the spot, for which Case No. 59/ 88 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, I.P.C. was got registered against the drivers of both the vehicles. It was stated that late Om Prakash was a healthy boy of 20 years of age and was the only bread earner to the family. The elder brother of the deceased being lacunic was unable to do any work and deceased who was a skilled labour, was employed in a factory at Bhilwara. It was also stated that deceased was getting Rs. 750 per month as salary and was having net income of Rs. 12,000 per month from his ancestral agricultural land and was giving help to the applicants of Rs. 1,750 per month. The applicants further stated that due to death of the deceased they have been deprived of the services and comforts provided by the deceased and have received a let of mental agony. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,62,000 under different heads. The respondents non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the truck filed their reply to the claim petition and took the same stand as was taken by them in another claim petition arising out of the said accident and prayed for rejection of the claim petition with costs. So was the case of non-applicant respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company, with which the truck was insured which raised the objections and objections verbatim and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The non-applicants respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also remained firm on their stand taken in another claim petition.
8. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties framed issues for deciding the matter and considering the evidence produced by the parties, passed the award as stated above. Dissatisfied with the amount of award, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeals.
9. It was contended by learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals that the Tribunal has erred in considering the monthly income of the two deceased and their dependency was fixed at low rate even when it was proved by unrebutted evidence that their earning was more than fixed by the learned Tribunal. It was also contended that the multiplier applied in both the cases was not proper as the span of life has increased tremendously these days. The learned Counsel further contended that the amount awarded under the loss of love and affection is too low which needs to be suitably enhanced.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award passed by learned Tribunal but submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is at higher side and it should not have been more than 9% per annum.
11. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me.
12. In the present appeals, the point which requires consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded to the appellants by the learned Tribunal is to be enhanced or not and what should be the rate of interest?
13. The claimants Smt. Koyali and others in their claim petition have stated that accident has taken place on 19.3.1988, the deceased Omprakash was travelling in the bus and was going to Haridwar from Jaipur with ashes of his father. It has also been stated in the claim petition that when the bus bearing No. HYG 4144 while going to Delhi from Jaipur reached near village Dhand, the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at that time respondent driver of the truck bearing No. HRU 8123, which was coming from Delhi side, both dashed against each other, as a result of which Omprakash died at the spot.
14. In the said accident one Tara Devi was also travelling and she also died at the spot leaving behind a son of tender age. The respondents though not disputed the accident but it is their case that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire matter taking into consideration the stand taken by the appellants and also the reply filed by the respondents came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of drivers of both truck and the bus. Since the accident has not been disputed and two deaths have taken place and in relation to the incident a First Information Report was also lodged and that is also not disputed, the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased was conducted, in view of that, it stands proved that in an accident, which took place on 19.3.1988 near village Dhand, Omprakash and Smt. Tara Devi have died.
15. Deceased Omprakash is said to be 20 years of age at the time of his death and was said to be the only bread earner of the family. Regarding claimant No. 2, it has been stated in the claim petition that the elder brother of the deceased was not of sound mind and was dependent on the deceased. The learned Tribunal found by the evidence adduced and documents produced that it was amply proved that on account of accident, which took place on 19.3.1988 near village Dhand on Jaipur-Delhi Road, Om Prakash and Tara Devi both have died. The Tribunal also found that the drivers of both the vehicles Were not vigilant and that has resulted in accident. The Tribunal found further that in the claim petition in relation to deceased Omprakash, the claimants have stated the income of deceased @ Rs, 750 per month as he was working as a labourer in a factory at Bhilwara. In the statement recorded of Smt. Koyali, she has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 900 per month. It has also been stated by her that the deceased used to make payment towards rent of the house @ Rs. 200-250 per month. She has also stated that he used to give Rs. 400-500 per month to his family members.
16. In view of the facts stated in the claim petition and also taking into consideration the age of the dependents, 15 years dependency was considered in relation to mother for the reason that the mother of the deceased was 50 years of age when the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal, thus, awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000 by applying multiplier of 15. The Tribunal, however, did not consider the claim of dependency in relation to yearly income from agriculture for the reason that no evidence in that regard was produced. The Tribunal also did not find that the elder brother of the deceased was of unsound mind for the reason that there was no evidence. The findings of the learned Tribunal in relation to considering the claim made by the appellants, appears to have been assessed properly. In the main claim petition the monthly income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 750 per month then there was no reasons to have gone beyond that. In relation to income from agriculture, in absence of evidence, the Tribunal has correctly reached to the conclusion that dependency of Mst. Koyali was to be considered taking into consideration the age of appellant mother who was of 50 years at the time of filing the claim petition and her span of life was considered up to the age of 65 years. It appears that now-a-days looking to the increase in the span of life on account of various reasons, it can be said that normally a person would survive, upto 70 years. Therefore, in my opinion, the dependency ought to have been considered by the Tribunal for a period of 20 years in relation to the mother of the deceased. Thus it comes to 250 x 12 x 20 = 60,000. The award passed by the learned Tribunal requires to be modified to the above extent in relation to the dependency.
17. In the case of Alok, the son of deceased Tara Devi, who also died in the said accident, it has been stated in the claim petition that at the time when her mother died in the accident, he was 6 years of age and he was completely dependent upon her mother. The claim petition has been filed by his uncle as his guardian. In the claim petition, it has been stated that the monthly income of deceased Tara Devi by tailoring was Rs. 700 per month. The Tribunal assessed the dependency on the basis of the claim petition and the statement of A.W. 2 Smt. Vidyavati. It has come that the age of Alok at the time of death of his mother was 8 years. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the dependency upto the age of 21 years after applying multiplier of 13 and considering dependency @ Rs. 350 per month granted compensation calculating as Rs. 350 x 12 x 13 = 54,600 and granting compensation under other various heads a total award was made of Rs. 69,600.
18. It appears that after the death of his mother the claimant Alok completely became orphan. He neither has father nor mother. His mother was only one to look after him. His father had died long back in 1985 and he was totally dependent on his mother. He has been deprived of the love and affection which was essential for him in his tender age and has been left without proper guidance of the parents. Thus, in my considered opinion the total compensation which has been awarded to him under other heads i.e., Rs. 15,000 is a meagre amount and it is enhanced to Rs. 25,000.
19. Now it is to be seen as to whether the assessment of dependency made by the learned Tribunal in the case of Alok requires to be enhanced or not?
20. In the claim petition, the age of the boy Alok is stated to be 6 years and in the statement of A. W. 3 Vidyavati, the age of the boy has been stated to be 8 years, therefore, it can be presumed that at the time of accident the boy should have been 6 years or so. Thus, the multiplier which is required to be adopted should be atleast of 16 for the reason that by applying the multiplier of 16 the dependency of the boy will be approximately upto the time of his being major and thus the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 350 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 67,200 instead of Rs. 54,600 giving an increase in compensation amount of Rs. 12,600 under this head.
21. Now the point which requires consideration is as to whether what should be the rate of interest in relation to the enhanced amounts in both the matters and from which date the interest is required to be paid?
22. Now-a-days, the rate of interest has substantially decreased and the rate of interest which is being awarded in such matters by the Courts has also been reduced looking to the change of policy by Reserve Bank of India and other factors including economy, inflation etc., and the present normal rate of interest on deposits in banking sector is less than 9%. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed before me. The interest was awarded by the Tribunal @ 12% from the date of filing claim petitions, which cannot be sustained for the reason that same is excessive and not being in consonance with the prevailing RBI policies and the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including one passed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia J. Mahajan and Ors. : [2002]3SCR1176 , wherein the same was reduced to 9% per annum. In another case reported in : [2001]1SCR8 , Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. the Hon'ble Court while dealing the matter on the point of interest has observed:
Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the M.V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that 'in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the date of making claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The Nationalised Banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants.
Thus, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing claim petition requires to be reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum and the same is hereby reduced to 9% p.a. The impugned award, therefore, stands modified to the above extent.
23. On the enhanced amount of compensation the appellants shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of judgment if the amount is not paid by the respondents in terms of the responsibility fixed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.