MALTI BAI Vs. GHASIYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimants appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short "The Tribunal), vide award dated 16-04-2001, passed in Claim Case No. 68/ 2000. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased - Surendra @ Suresh, claimed compensation of Rs. 46,50,000/- for his death in the motor accident, when on 19-08-2000 his scooter bearing registration No. M.P. 24-Y.A.3858 was dashed by the offending vehicle - jeep bearing Registration. No. M.P. 23-T/1408, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Surendra @ Suresh, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 28-08-2000. The claimants further pleaded that deceased - Surendra @ Suresh used to earn Rs. 21,000/- per month by plying a truck and supplying that building material.

(2.) THE owner and driver of the jeep did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal. THE insurer of the offending vehicle-jeep contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants 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. THE claimants examined AW1 - Malitibai, AW2 - Vishnu Dewangan & AW3 - Arun Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle - jeep did not examine any witness in rebuttal. THE Tribunal on the evidence led by the parties held that deceased -Surendra @ Suresh died on 28-08-2000 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19-08-2000, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle - jeep; and as the offending vehicle - jeep was insured on the date of the accident with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

(3.) ON a bare perusal of para 15 of the award, we find that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the compensation payable to the claimants by multiplying the annual dependency with the appropriate multiplier and awarding a lumpsum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of dependency to the claimants. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,750/- assessed by the Tribunal. By deducting l/3rd of Rs. 3,750/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Deceased - Surendra @ Suresh was 35 of years of age on the date of the accident whereas his widow Smt. Maltibai was shown 33 years of age in the claim petition filed in the year 2000. The Apex Court in the case of T.N. Sate Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Others, reported in : (2005) 6 SCC 236 while holding that multiplier of 12 would be appropriate in the said case where the age of the deceased was 38 years, observed in para 17 as under: