Shivnarayan and ors. Vs. Rathi Motors and ors. - Court Judgment

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 4.7.2003 passed in Claim Case No. 3 of 2003 by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur.

2. The appellants preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming that Rs. 6,00,000 be awarded to them by way of damages for the death of deceased Bhagwantabai. The appellant No. 1, Shivnarayan is the husband of the deceased Bhagwantabai while the other appellants are her children.

3. The learned Tribunal has held that Bhagwantabai had died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 when he drove a tractor bearing engine No. NGH 16307 and chassis No. 16307-F-1 on 31.12.2002 at 4.15 p.m. at Ranthbanwar Berchha. The learned Tribunal has held that respondents are liable for paying the compensation to the appellants, but instead of awarding Rs. 6,00,000 as damages learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,52,000. The claimants-appellants feeling the amount inadequate and on lower side preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for getting quantum of award enhanced.

4. Since this is an appeal filed by claimants for enhancement, we are not required to examine the other findings of learned Tribunal which are against the respondents. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether any enhancement is required to be made in the quantum of the award?

5. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Bhagwantabai at Rs. 15,000 per annum and dependency of the appellants on her has been found to be Rs. 10,000 per annum. Thereafter, multiplier of 15 has been applied and the loss of dependency is worked out as Rs. 1,50,000. Adding Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses the total sum of Rs. 1,52,000 has been awarded to the appellants.

6. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss to estate, etc. Learned Tribunal has also not taken into account the fact that the ladies of labour class are bound to render multifarious services required to be rendered by housewives such as cooking, washing clothes, cleaning the house and looking after the other requirements of the family, therefore, their contribution to the husband or to the family cannot be taken to be limited to the financial contribution made by them by way of making income from doing the labour. The value of the services rendered by them for managing the entire family had to be properly estimated in terms of money and kept in mind while assessing the loss of dependency in case of married woman, working as labourer.

7. The learned Tribunal while assessing the loss has considered only the loss of income of the deceased and assessed the loss taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000 per annum and worked out the dependency at Rs. 10,000 per annum. The value of the domestic services has neither been assessed nor kept in view while assessing the loss. We, even on a modest estimation would like to add Rs. 5,000 per annum to the loss of dependency found by the Tribunal on account of the fact that the appellants have been deprived of the services of the deceased. Thus, according to us, the loss of dependency to the appellants should be taken as Rs. 15,000 per annum instead of Rs. 10,000. On multiplying the above figure by 15, which is the proper multiplier for the age group to which deceased belonged and which has also been selected by learned Tribunal, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,25,000. We would like to add further lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000, as compensation payable under various conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of company and loss to estate, etc., making total compensation payable Rs. 2,40,000. According to our computation the aforesaid amount is the just, fair and reasonable sum payable as the compensation to the appellants.

8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award deserves to be enhanced and modified to the above extent only. The appellants are awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,40,000 which shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The respondents shall bear the costs of the appellants throughout. Any amount paid by way of the interim award or otherwise towards the compensation shall be adjusted towards the amount of award. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. And out of the amount payable under the award, half of the amount and proportionate interest shall be payable to appellant No. 1, Shivnarayan, son of Munshilal and the remaining half and interest shall be equally distributed amongst the remaining minor appellants, i.e., Ramkanyabai, Ishwar Singh, Rachana and Nirmalabai respectively. The amount payable to each of the aforesaid appellants shall be invested with any nationalised bank in fixed or term deposit till they attain majority and the half of the amount payable to appellant No. 1 shall be so invested for three years so as to fetch the maximum interest.