IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.141 of 2004. Reserved on: 24.10.2008. Date of decision: October 29, 2008. Nirmala Devi & Anr. … Appellants. Versus Ashok Kumar & Ors. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala with Ms.Ambika Kotwal, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.B.M.Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The claimants have come in appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 4.3.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MAC Case No.91 of 2002 awarding Rs.1,50,000 compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of award till realization if the award amount was not Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… deposited within 45 days with the Tribunal. The respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have been made liable to pay the award amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Naresh Kumar aged about 20 years, son of the appellants, on 6.11.2002 at about 9.30 a.m. was travelling in bus bearing registration No.HP-22-6310 which met with an accident near Bhager, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. In the accident Naresh Kumar sustained serious injuries and died. F.I.R. No.213 of 2002 was got registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin. It has been alleged that deceased was earning Rs.8000 per month. Respondent No.1 was driving the bus at the time of accident, respondent No.2 was the conductor on the bus and respondent No.3 was the owner of the bus. The bus was insured with respondent No.4. It has been alleged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and also of the negligence of respondent No.2 conductor. The appellants claimed Rs.20 lacs compensation on account of death of Naresh Kumar. They have also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 3. The petition was contested by respondents No.1 to 3 by filing joint reply in which they took preliminary …3… objections of maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties. The accident has been admitted as also the ownership of the bus but it has been denied that the bus was involved in the accident. It has been pleaded that F.I.R. was got registered in collusion with the police. It has been alleged that appellants have concocted a false story to claim compensation which is excessive. It has also been pleaded that in case respondents No.1 to 3 are found liable to pay compensation in that event liability, if any, is of respondent No.4 with whom the vehicle was insured. 4. The respondent No.4 filed separate reply in which preliminary objections have been taken that the vehicle was being plied contrary to Motor Vehicles Act. There was no valid route permit, fitness certificate for plying the vehicle. The driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle was not insured inasmuch as particulars of the insurance have not been given. On merits, it has been pleaded that compensation claimed is excessive. The insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Tribunal held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 driver. It has been held that Insurance Company has failed to prove that respondent No.1 was not …4… holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal ultimately decided the petition vide award dated 4.3.2004, as noticed above. The claimants have come in appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 5. I have heard Mr.Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.B.M.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and gone through the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased on the lower side. The deceased was 20 years of age when he died in the accident. The appellant No.1 was about 45 years and appellant No.2, 52 years when their son Naresh Kumar died in the accident. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded lump-sum amount Rs.1,50,000 which is on the lower side. According to Mr.Thakur, keeping in view the age of the deceased and the parents, appropriate multiplier should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. He has submitted that while awarding lump-sum amount payment of compensation under various known heads was not considered by the learned Tribunal. The payment of interest has been made conditional which according to Mr.Thakur is wrong. Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, …5… learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, has supported the impugned award and has submitted that appellants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal while awarding lump-sum amount has taken into consideration all relevant factors and lump-sum amount awarded by learned Tribunal is legal and otherwise equitable which requires no enhancement. The payment of interest is discretionary and according to the discretion exercised by the learned Tribunal, it has been made conditional and no fault can be found with the payment of interest. Mr.B.M.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.4, has reiterated the reasoning given by learned Tribunal in the impugned award on the quantum of compensation and interest while opposing enhancement of compensation. 6. The award has become final against all parties except appellants who have come in appeal. Therefore, the point for consideration for this Court is narrow and limited only to the quantum of compensation. 7. PW-1 Hem Raj was examined on 4.9.2003 and on that date he had given his age 53 years and that of his wife 46 years. He has further stated that Naresh Kumar was his son and was trained licence holder wireman. He used to work with Contractor at Darlaghat. He used to work …6… privately also and help in agriculture operations. He used to give Rs.8000-Rs.10,000 per month to him (PW-1). He had spent Rs.30,000-Rs.40,000 on the last rites of the deceased. He has placed on record salary certificate Ext.PF of the deceased. 8. PW-3 Lal Mani Yadav has stated that he is proprietor of M/s.L.M.Electrical Works and Naresh Kumar used to work with him as wireman. He has stated that salary certificate Ext.PF bears his signatures Ext.PW-3/A. In cross examination, he has stated that he was income tax assessee but again said that he has no income and, therefore, he is not paying any income tax. PW-4 Balbir Singh has stated that Naresh Kumar used to work in his workshop in his spare time and he used to pay him Rs.2500- Rs.3000. The claimants have not led satisfactory evidence to show what was the income of deceased. In salary certificate Ext.PF the salary of deceased Naresh Kumar has been shown Rs.5000 per month but PW-3 Lal Mani Yadav in his cross examination has stated that he has no income and, therefore, he is not paying any income tax. In these circumstances, doubt has been created regarding the genuineness of salary certificate Ext.PF which cannot be relied in order to assess the income of deceased. There is …7… no other evidence on record to show the income of the deceased. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that deceased was a trained licence holder Wireman, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased at Rs.3000 per month. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was a Wireman and, therefore, on the conservative side also he must be earning more than Rs.3000 per month keeping in view the wages earned by a wireman. The deceased was not employed in an organized sector, therefore, it cannot be assumed that deceased used to remain engaged throughout the month. The possibility cannot be ruled out that on some days of the month the deceased had no work. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000 per month. 9. The deceased was 20 years of age and the claimants were 45 and 52 years of age respectively at the time of death of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and in the normal circumstances he was to be married in due course of time. The claimants are the parents. In New India Assurance Company versus Prem Chand and others, Latest HLJ 2007 HP 1046, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in normal circumstances when the …8… parents are the claimants, their dependency is to be assessed at 1/3rd of the total income. This is because the child would in normal course get married in near future. In H.S.Ahammed Hussain and another versus Irfan Ahammed and another 2002 (6) SCC 52, the age of the victim Vazeer was 22 years and that of his father 53 years and mother 45 years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the multiplier of 15 in the compensation case filed by the parents of Vazeer. Therefore, keeping in view H.S.Ahammed Hussain (supra), in my opinion, in the present case multiplier of 15 is the appropriate multiplier for assessing the compensation and the appellants are entitled to compensation 1000x12x15=Rs.1,80,000. In addition, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000 on account of loss of natural love and affection, funeral expenses etc. as allowed in FAO (MVA) No.447 of 2003, titled Smt.Kamal Jeet versus Smt.Susheela Devi & others, decided on 6.6.2008 by this Court. The appellants are thus entitled to an amount of Rs.1,95,000 compensation in all on account of death of Naresh Kumar from respondents No.1, 3 and 4 inclusive of interim amount, if any, paid or awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the quantum of …9… compensation in view of the material which has come on record. The amount awarded is thus liable to be modified, as discussed above. The learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded conditional interest. The appellants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit / realization. Therefore, on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000 the appellants are also entitled to 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The bus was insured with respondent No.4, therefore, whole amount of compensation along with interest shall be paid / deposited by the Insurance Company. The appellants shall be entitled to apportionment of the compensation in the ratio of 2:1 as held by the learned Tribunal. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, the impugned award is modified. The appellants No.1 and 2 are held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.1,95,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization against respondents No.1, 3 and 4 on account of death of their son Naresh Kumar. The bus in question was …10… insured with respondent No.4, therefore, whole of the amount of compensation along with interest shall be paid / deposited by respondent No.4 insurer. The appellants No.1 and 2 shall be entitled to amount of compensation along with interest in the ratio 2:1. No costs. Oct.29, 2008(soni) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. …11…