Ali Raza and anr. Vs. Bishan Singh Aithani and anr. - Court Judgment

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

1. Mr. Zaffar Ullah Siddique, Advocate for the appellants is heard on admission.

2. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haldwani vide award dated 10.5.2006 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 172 of 2005, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,66,000 (rupees two lakh sixty-six thousand) has been awarded as compensation to the claimants.

3. Claimants Ali Raza and Rabia, who are father and sister of the deceased Sabir Saifi respectively, claimed compensation of Rs. 11,52,600 for his death in the motor accident on 16.9.2005, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle, jeep bearing registration No. UP 02-C 7016 resulting in serious injuries to Sabir Saifi who later succumbed to those injuries. The claimants pleaded that deceased Sabir Saifi was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs. 5,400 per month working as a mechanic in Amit Automobiles, Haldwani.

4. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jeep, contested the claim. The owner denied his liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the motorcyclist, whereas the insurer of the jeep denied its liability to pay compensation on the plea that the jeep was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence.

5. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Sabir Saifi sustained injuries in the motor accident on 16.9.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, jeep; and the insurer of the jeep was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6. As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not found reliable, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month, that is, Rs. 36,000 per annum. By deducting 73rd of the said amount as personal expenses of the deceased, claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000 per annum. By multiplying the amount of annual dependency (i.e., Rs. 24,000) by the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,64,000. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus total sum of Rs. 2,66,000 (rupees two lakh sixty-six thousand) was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Sabir Saifi in the motor accident.

7. Claims Tribunal further directed the insurance company to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in the event of non-payment of the amount of compensation within a period of one month from date of the award.

8. Mr. Zaffar Ullah Siddique, learned Counsel for appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in directing conditional payment of interest on the amount of compensation.

9. Though the claimants in the claim petition pleaded that deceased Sabir Saifi used to earn Rs. 5,400 per month, their witness Amit Sahani, PW 3, who was the owner of the workshop wherein the deceased was stated to be working as a mechanic, stated in his evidence that deceased was being paid Rs. 5,000 per month. The claimants also adduced in evidence salary certificate issued by Amit Sahani, PW 3. The Tribunal found that the evidence of Amit Sahani, PW 3, was not supported by salary register/attendance register of the workshop. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal found it proper to assess the income of deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 36,000 per annum on its own estimate. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 36,000 per annum.

10. That apart, in a motor accident case 1 what is important is that the amount awarded as compensation, should be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case. Even assuming that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000 per month and Rs. 60,000 per annum as stated by Amit Sahani, PW 3, dependency of the claimants, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, could not have been assessed at more than Rs. 24,000 per annum. It is so because deceased Sabir Saifi, who was aged about 25 years, was unmarried on the date of the accident and would have got married soon. After his marriage, his contribution towards the family would have been reduced substantially and he would not have been in a position to contribute towards his father and sister more than Rs. 24,000 per annum. The multiplier of 11 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer MANU/SC/0836/2003 : AIR2003SC4182 , wherein it has been held that in a case where the claimants are parents, the multiplier of 10 is appropriate. Thus by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000 with the multiplier of 10 the compensation would have been Rs. 2,40,000 only. As against this, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,64,000 and has awarded further sum of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses taking the total compensation to Rs. 2,66,000.

11. Thus, seen from any angle the compensation of Rs. 2,66,000 awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as 'inadequate' so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants in regard to the conditional payment of interest also deserves an outright rejection as Claims Tribunal has decided the claim petition within a period of 8 months of the accident.

13. As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the income of the deceased or dependency of the claimants as assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.