MA-3723-2009 (CHETAN Vs SURENDRA SINGH) 29-10-2015 1. This order shall govern the disposal of both Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of common Award. For convenience, the facts of [CASE NUMBER], are taken into consideration. 2. Appellant has filed this appeal against the Award dated 05.03.2009 passed by the Court of IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in [CASE NUMBER]. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.2 has expired.
3. On 24.08.2007, the deceased [ENTITY] who was the father of the present appellant had been going from his house to village Khapa on foot. He was dashed by a truck bearing registration No.HR-39- A-5927 driven rashly and negligently. The deceased was referred to Hospital where he died. The resident of the village caught hold the driver of the vehicle on the spot. The police registered a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. The appellant who is son of the deceased, filed an application under [SECTION] of [ACT] and claimed a compensation of Rs.30 Lacs. The appellant pleaded that the deceased was working as [ENTITY] and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- . The driver of the vehicle had valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which was insured by the respondent No.3-[ENTITY]. The deceased was died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The father of the appellant was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He could have been promoted upto the post of Revenue Inspector. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.30 Lacs.
5. The claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with by the respondent No.3 at the time of incident, the appellant is eligible to get compensation of Rs.6,05,724/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the claims Tribunal has not Awarded proper compensation. The Tribunal has not considered the dependency properly and future loss of income has also not been considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation hence, the Award passed by the Tribunal is not proper. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the following judgments.
(i) [ENTITY] and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013, ACJ 1403.
(ii) [ENTITY] and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 ACJ 1985.
7. The accident had occurred on 24.8.2007. The driver of the offending vehicle was arrested by the Police and an offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] was registered against the driver of the vehicle.
8. After perusal of the evidence of appellant (AW-1), (AW-2) and (AW-3) to the effect that when the deceased was going on foot, he was dashed by the offending vehicle which was driven rashly and negligently. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is in accordance with law.
9. The vehicle was insured at the relevant time by the respondent No.3 Insurance Company and the Insurance policy was produced before the Court. This fact is not controverted by the respondent No.3. The driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence which he had produced before the claims Tribunal hence, in my opinion the Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the insured.
10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has held that at the relevant time, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.6,731/- and after deduction he was getting monthly salary Rs.5781/- and the yearly income of the deceased was Rs.69,372/-.
rd The Tribunal fixed the dependency 1/3 and the dependency of rd the claimants 2/3 because along with the deceased his father, mother and present appellant, who is son of the deceased and brother of the deceased were residing. The wife of the deceased separated earlier. A decree of divorce was granted by the competent Court. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held the loss of income to the appellant on account of death of the deceased Rs.46,248/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier on the basis of age of the mother of the deceased because the wife of the deceased got divorced. In my opinion, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is not proper because the deceased was not Bachelor. The appellant is son of the deceased and he was maintaining his father and mother also. The Supreme Court applied the multiplier on the basis of age of the parents when the deceased was a Bachelor, however, this principle is not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased between 40-45 years hence, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier which is applicable as per IInd Schedule between the age 40-45 years and multiplier of 15 is applicable between the age 40-45 years hence, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier of 15.
11. After multiplying the aforesaid multiplier, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,90,000/- i.e. (46,000x15=6,90,000/-). The Supreme Court in the matter of [ENTITY] and others (supra) and in the matter of [ENTITY] and another (supra) has held after considering earlier judgments of the apex Court that if the age of the deceased is 40-45 years, then it would be just and proper to grant 30% benefit towards future prospects.
12. In the present case, in my opinion, the appellant is eligible to get the aforesaid benefit, hence 30% of Rs.6,90,000/- comes to Rs.2,07,000/-. The claimants are son, father and mother and an amount of Rs.1 Lacs for loss of consortium and Rs.1 Lacs for care and maintenance for minor child because the appellant was minor at the time of death of deceased be also awarded.
13. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. It is held that the appellant is eligible to get total compensation of Rs. 10,97,000/-
(6,90,000+2,07,000+1,00,000+1,00,000=10,97,000/-). The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.6,05,724/-. The appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the claim case before the Tribunal. The liability in regard to payment of compensation and terms and conditions of payment of compensation shall be in accordance with the award passed by the Tribunal. No order as to the costs.
14. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE