Smt. Ramesh Rani and ors. Vs. Shantanu Das and anr. - Court Judgment

Rajesh Tandon, J.

1. Heard Prabhat Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri D. S. Patni, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal arising out: of the judgment and order dated 19.9.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, district Udham Singh Nagar/Addl. District Judge in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 1999, Smt. Ramesh Rani v. Shantanu Das and Anr.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.6.1998 at about 8 p.m. Sri Vinod Kumar Khera was going on his Motor Cycle towards Rudrapur. A Matador bearing No. D.A.C.-9509 which was coming from Rudrapur and was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle of the deceased due to which he fell down, Mr. Vijay Papneja was present at the spot, he tried to stop the aforesaic Matador, but the driver of Matador fled away. Vinod Kumar sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries at the spot.

4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 11,000 (eleven thousand) per month. He left his wife Smt. Ramesh Rani and two sons namely Naval Kumar and Sumit Kumar. The petitioners claimed a sum, of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation.

5. The United India Insurance Company respondent No. 2 in its written statement has not admitted the factum of accident, but has denied the allegation that the aforesaid vehicle was insured at the time of accident. The Insurance Company has stated that it was not given any information about the aforesaid accident under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and as the vehicle was not insured with it, it cannot be held liable to pay any compensation.

6. The owner of the vehicle, Sri Shantanu Das respondent No. 1 has stated that Matador No. D.A.C.-9509 was not involved in the accident. He has further submitted that the Vehicle No. D.A.C.-9509 was insured with the United India Insurance Company at the time of accident and Sri Ayub Ansari had never been employed by him as driver.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has framed as many as three issues.

8. Issue No. 1 is as to whether the accident had taken place on 11.6.1998 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Matador No. D.A.C.-9509 due to which Vinod Kumar Khera died

9. Issue No. 2 is as to whether the aforesaid vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2

10. Issue No. 3 is regarding the amount of compensation.

11. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Matador due to which the deceased died on the spot and decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants.

12. The Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 2 has held that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident with United India Insurance Company.

13. The Claims Tribunal has held that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 39 years. The Claims Tribunal has placed reliance on the Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the year 1998-99, in which gross total income has been shown to be Rs. 1,20,000. Thus; the Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 and thus after deducting 1/3 for the own expenses of the deceased has calculated a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000. The Claims Tribunal has further deducted l/3rd of the amount for lump sum payment and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 5,33,000 as compensation to the petitioner.

14. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

15. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants/petitioner. No. appeal has been filed by the owner or the Insurance Company against the impugned order, therefore, the findings of the Claims Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 have become final.

16. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,20,000 on the basis of Income Tax Return. The deceased has paid income tax on this amount and thus his income of Rs. 1.20,000 cannot be disputed.

17. So far as the calculation of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has failed to calculate the amount according to the prescribed norms. In their application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants have mentioned the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 39 years. In the post-mortem report (paper No. 29C), the age of the deceased has been shown as 38 years. Thus, we hold the age of the deceased at the time of the accident as 39 years.

18. In Schedule II of M. V. Act multiplier for the age group of 35 to 40 years has been provided as '16'. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was not justified to adopt multiplier of--10--After deducting l/3rd of the amount from the total annual income of the deceased for his own expenses if he would have been alive, the annual dependency of the petitioners on the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 80,000 and after applying multiplier of --16--, the total amount of compensation comes to (Rs. 80,000 x 16) 12,80,000. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 12,80,000. Besides this, the claimants are also entitled to get funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000 and compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000 and thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 12,87,000. The petitioners are also entitled to get pendente lite and future interest on this amount @ 6% per annum.

19. The claimants/appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 12,87,000 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6%.

20. Sri Ramesh Rani, widow of the deceased shall get half of the total amount of compensation and half of the amount shall equally be divided in between the remaining petitioners. The amount of share of minor petitioners shall be deposited in some nationalized bank for the term they attain the age of majority.

21. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.