Manam Sarawati Sampoorna Kalavathi & ... vs Manager,Apsrtc & Anr

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

6. The incident took place on 11.1.1993 at 6.30 p.m. and the first information report was lodged at 8.00 p.m. on the same day. The post-mortem certificate revealed that the deceased died because of the multiple injuries and the injury on the vital part of the brain led to multiple fracture of vault and base of skull and due to haemorrhage and shock.

8. Regarding issue No. (ii) which is about the claim of compensation, the appellants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on the ground that the age of the deceased was 24 years on the date of accident and was getting Rs.5,000 per month. The Tribunal, relying on the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, Pondicherry, stated that the deceased got Rs.60,000/- towards salary and commission during the financial year 1991-92 and Rs.50,000/- from 1.4.1992 to 31.1.1993. The accident took place on 11.1.1993. This certificate shows that the total salary and commission for the ten months i.e. from 1.4.1992 to 31.1.1993 was Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the gross earnings of the deceased was around Rs.5,000/- per month from salary and commission. Out of this sum, if 1/3rd is deducted then the net contribution will be Rs.3,334/- per month which would work out to be Rs.40,008/- per annum. The Tribunal took a round figure of Rs.40,000/- and applied the multiplier of 16. According to the Tribunal, the total amount would work out to Rs.6,40,000/-. Since the amount was to be paid in lump sum, a further deduction of 25% was made and after deduction the remaining payable amount was Rs.4,80,000/-. Since the appellants had claimed only Rs. 4 lakhs, the Tribunal restricted the total compensation at Rs.4 lakhs.

16. The High Court was totally unjustified in weaving out a new case which is not borne out from the evidence on record. Similarly, the High Court erroneously observed that the possibility of respondent Nos.1 to 5 (appellants herein) influencing the police and getting an FIR registered with time and date of their choice cannot be ruled out and the possibility of PW-2 not being with the deceased at the time of accident and his implicating a bus belonging to the appellant (respondent no.1 herein) as having caused the accident also cannot be ruled out, because if really PW-2 was thrown away into the bushes due to the impact, as stated by him, he would have sustained at least some scratches and would have been referred to government hospital. The entire analysis of evidence by the High Court is erroneous and faulty. There was no basis for the High Court to come to the conclusion that the possibility of the respondents (appellants herein), influencing the police and getting the FIR registered with time and date of their choice cannot be ruled out.

23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are left with no choice but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and we do so. Consequently, the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Godawari District, is restored.

24. The amount of compensation which has already been given to the appellants would be adjusted and the remaining amount, with interest as directed by the Tribunal, would be handed over to the appellants within two months from today. In case, the amount is not paid within a period of two months, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

25. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

..................................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) ................................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN) New Delhi;

March 26, 2010