RAJO Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the parents of one Mr.Rajinder Kumar who died on 28.9.1990 in a road accident, alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Appellants, have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal after recording of evidence of the parties had held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.1 and the deceased Rajinder Kumar had died due to the injuries received in the said accident. It was further held by the Tribunal that the appellants being the parents of the deceased were entitled to the grant of compensation for his death. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.63,480.00 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the appellants. While, the award has not been challenged by the respondents, the appellants as already mentioned above have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal while awarding compensation has not taken into consideration the future prospects in life of the deceased. It is submitted that at the time of his death the deceased was 21 years of age and the age of his father was 50 years and the mother was 43 years of age and the Tribunal, therefore, ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased so as to arrive at proper and just compensation payable to his parents. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has failed to apply the correct multiplier in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act while calculating the compensation payable to the appellants. Though, no appeal has been filed by the respondents to challenge the award, however, it is submitted by the respondents that the entire compensation ought not have been paid to the parents of the deceased inasmuch as the deceased being unmarried, he would have married after a few years and on his marriage, he would have spent most of his income on his own family and the parents of the deceased were, therefore, not entitled to more than half of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit Versus Balwant Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1274 and General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Versus Susama Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 it is well-settled that the average gross future monthly income of the deceased could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death to the maximum to which the deceased would have been otherwise entitled to get had he not died a premature death and diving the figure by two. In this manner, the average gross monthly income spread over the entire future career would be available for purposes of arriving at just compensation. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in life of the deceased and has not taken into consideration the amount which he would have been earning at the end of his career. As the appellants have not been able to prove the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the minimum wages applicable in the case of unskilled workers as on 28.9.1990, when the accident had taken place. Minimum wages of an unskilled worker at the relevant time were Rs.793.00 and this amount has been taken to be the yardstick for arriving at the compensation payable to the appellants. In terms of the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wage payable to an unskilled worker in July, 2003 is about Rs.2600.00 per month. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the income which the deceased would have been earning in July, 2003 under the Minimum Wages Act, can at least be added to the minimum wage applicable in the case of the unskilled workers in September, 1990 and then divide the same by two. Thus, the average gross income would work out to Rs.1750.00 per month. Deducting 1/3rd of this income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency to the family would work out to Rs.1175.00 per month. As the deceased was unmarried, the multiplier in the present case would be applied taking into consideration the age of his parents. The father of the deceased was 50 years of age and the mother was 43 years of age at the time of the death of the deceased. Even taking the age of the father as a criteria for applying the multiplier, the correct multiplier to be applied would come to 11. The deceased was unmarried at the time of his death. In normal course, he may have married at the age of 26 so till the time he would have married the parents would have been entitled to the entire compensation. However, after the marriage of the deceased at the age of 26, the parents would, in my view, be not entitled to more than half the compensation. Taking the loss of dependency at Rs.1175.00 per month or say Rs.13,800.00 per year compensation for the first five years would come to Rs.69,000.00 . For the remaining six years, the appellants would not be entitled to more than half the compensation and thus for the next six years, the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.41,400.00. The appellants would, thus, be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,10,400.00.