SATYA WATI Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement for compensation for the death of their son on 5.8.1980 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The deceased was 18 years of age at the time of his death and was allegedly earning a sum of Rs. 400/- per month. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver held that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal relying upon the statement of the employer of the deceased held that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 240/- per month. It was further held that the deceased could not have given the economic support to his parents at more than Rs. 100/- per month as he was also pursuing his studies in the evening. It was also held by the Tribunal that as the deceased would have got married and would have looked after his wife and children, he could not possibly give support of more than Rs. 100/- per month to his family. Taking the loss of dependency at Rs. 100/- per month, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and came to a finding that just compensation payable would come to Rs. 18,000/-. Deducting 10% from this amount on the ground of lump sum payment, the compensation payable to the appellant come to Rs. 16,200/-. This award is now challenged by the appellants claiming enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal that loss of dependency to the parents of the deceased would not have been more than 1/3rd of his income after he had married. It is, however, submitted that the deceased was only 18 years of age at the time of his death and he may not have married till he had attained the age of 25 years and at least for seven years loss of dependency to the parents would be 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has also admittedly not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased at the time of considering the loss of dependency to his family. The deceased, before he met with the accident, had appeared in his Intermediate examination, the result of which was declared after his death and he was declared successful in the same.

(3.) The employer of the deceased had appeared as a witness and had stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 240/- per month. With the rise in inflation and cost of living, in my opinion, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. With the passage of time, the income which he was getting would have increased because of rise in inflation and cost of living. Under the Minimum Wages Act as on 1.1.1980, a matriculate was getting minimum wage of Rs. 325/- per month. This wage had increased in 1994 to Rs. 1,830/- per month and in February, 2003 to Rs. 3,231 /- per month. It is thus seen that within a period of 14 years there is almost six fold increase in the minimum wage payable to a Matriculate under the Minimum Wages Act though the Second Sched ule to the Motor Vehicles Act was inserted in the year 1994, however, the same can be taken as a guide for applying the multiplier even in cases which were instituted prior to the Second Schedule was inserted. Even after 23 years of the accident, mother of the deceased is still alive. In my view, therefore, in the facts of this case it will not be wrong to apply the multiplier of 16 to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellants. The deceased was 18 years of age and was unmarried at the time of his death. It is no doubt true that he would have married in due course of time but, in my pinion, such marriage would not have taken place at least for a period of 6 to 7 years and till such time he had married, the loss of dependency to the parents would be at least 2/3rd of his income. It is only after marriage that it can be said that the deceased would not be contributing more than 1/3rd of his income to his parents. The Tribunal has, therefore, clearly erred in taking the loss of dependency at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for the entire period for which the compensation has been assessed.