Mst.Manwati and ors. Vs. Satyendra Kumar Jaiswal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. while enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under section 14-b and accumulations required to be transferred under section 15 (2). the legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of section 17, therefore, there is no plausible reasons to give a restricted meaning to the expression any amount due form the employer and confine it to the amount determined under section 7-a or the contribution payable under section 8. if interest payable by the employer under section 7-q and damages leviable under section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression any amount due from an employer, every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or..........rs.38,400/- under the head of loss of dependency. likewise, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to get an amount of rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate in the facts and circumstances of the case and a sum of rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the appellant no.1 plus rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses of the deceased, as already awarded by the tribunal. when the aforesaid amount is added to the amount of rs.2,56,500/- assessed by the tribunal, as the loss of dependency, the total amount comes to rs.3,21,400/- to which the claimants/appellants are entitled. the amount of impugned award is accordingly modified to a sum of rs.3,21,400/-. the amount enhanced in appeal shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.9. the differential amount shall be deposited by respondent no.5/insurance co. within two months from today.10. the award amount shall be disbursed to appellants/claimants in accordance with law laid down in the case of general manager, kerala state road transport corporation v. mrs. susamma thomas & others, air 1994 sc 1631.11. appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. no cost.

Judgment:

1. Being dissatisfied with the award dated 30.11.02 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi (in short 'the tribunal') in Claim Case No.62/96, appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act').

2. Appellants/claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act before the tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,67,900/- on account of death of Jaichand Sharma in the motor accident. Appellants/claimants are the wife and children of deceased Jaichand Sharma. According to the claimants, on 28.4.89 about 7:30 in the evening when deceased Jaichand Sharma was returning home on his bicycle, respondent no.2 driving the truck No.UHZ-8854 rashly and negligently dashed against him resulting into his death. The offending vehicle belonged to respondent no.1 and was insured with respondent no.5/New India Insurance Co. Deceased Jaichand Sharma was 40 years of age at the time of accident and was working in NTPC, getting a salary of Rs.2000/- per month plus bonus. Claimants/appellants, therefore, claimed compensation under various heads from the respondents no.1, 2 and 5 on account of death of Jaichand Sharma in the motor accident. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents.

3. The tribunal, after enquiry, came to hold that deceased Jaichand Sharma died as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.UHZ-8854 by respondent no.2, belonging to respondent no.1 and 2

insured with respondent no.5/Insurance Co. The tribunal also held that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident and was working in NTPC getting a salary of Rs.2000/- per month, therefore, deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the loss of dependency of the claimants at Rs.2,56,000/- besides Rs.5,000/-for loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- for loss of estate, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and thus held that the claimants were entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,65,500/- as compensation. However, due to inadvertence or typing error the tribunal passed an award of only Rs.2,56,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants and against respondents no.1, 2 and 5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has not properly assessed the loss of dependency of the claimants and gave meagre sum under other heads and thus granted inadequate compensation.

5. There has been a preliminary objection on behalf of respondent no.5 that the insurance company has not been shown as respondent/non-applicant in the cause title of the impugned award. However, it was conceded at bar that New India Insurance Co./respondent no.5 was a party in the claim case before the tribunal and it appears that due to oversight its name has not been mentioned as respondent in the cause title of the impugned award.

6. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that just compensation has been awarded to the claimants/appellants and no interference is called for.

7. There is no challenge to the finding that deceased Jaichand Sharma died as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.UHZ-8854 by respondent no.2, belonging to respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.5/New India Insurance Co. at the time of accident.

8. As regards the quantum of compensation, the tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was working in NTPC and getting a salary of Rs.2363/- per month, but calculated the compensation on the basis of salary at Rs.2000/- per month, applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the loss of dependency of the claimants at Rs.2,56,000/-. Although, considering the age of the deceased as forty years, proper multiplier was applied, yet the tribunal has not assigned sound reasons 3

for reducing the amount of salary while calculating the loss of dependency. As per salary certificate (Ex.P-1), which was not disputed, deceased used to get net salary of Rs.2363/- per month. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd in round figure from this amount and applying multiplier of 16, claimants/appellants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs.38,400/- under the head of loss of dependency. Likewise, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate in the facts and circumstances of the case and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the appellant no.1 plus Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses of the deceased, as already awarded by the tribunal. When the aforesaid amount is added to the amount of Rs.2,56,500/- assessed by the tribunal, as the loss of dependency, the total amount comes to Rs.3,21,400/- to which the claimants/appellants are entitled. The amount of impugned award is accordingly modified to a sum of Rs.3,21,400/-. The amount enhanced in appeal shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

9. The differential amount shall be deposited by respondent no.5/Insurance Co. within two months from today.

10. The award amount shall be disbursed to appellants/claimants in accordance with law laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & others, AIR 1994 SC 1631.

11. Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No cost.