MAHARANI Vs. SUMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the award dated 3/2/2002 of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/-along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) THE brief conspectus of facts are as follows: on 16/9/1987, the deceased Sh. Prem Pal along with his brother boarded the bus bearing registration no. DEP 6595 from Jawala Puri Market bus stop for going to Chanakyapuri which was plying under DTC operation on route no. 944. The bus was over crowded and at about 7:35 PM when the bus reached Madipur bus stop and halted there, the deceased moved near the foot board near the exit gate so that other passengers could alight from the bus. The passengers were still alighting from the bus and without noticing this, Sh. Vijender Singh the bus driver started the bus with a jerk and accelerated the bus in order to overtake a private bus, which was standing at the bus stop. Due to the sudden jerk, the deceased fell down from the bus and collided against the private bus standing at the bus stop and received fatal injuries. From the site of accident he was taken to the ESI hospital and from there he was referred to the RML hospital, where he took his last breath on 21/9/1987. A claim petition was filed before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal and award in this regard was made on 3/2/2000. Aggrieved with the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants claimants for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) MS. Aruna Mehta, counsel for the appellants has assailed the award on various grounds. Firstly, it is urged that at the time of the accident the deceased was 30 yrs of age and was working as a mali with the Horticulture department of CPWD and was earning Rs. 1032 pm and would have been drawn a salary of Rs. 2068 pm in the year 1995, therefore, the tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000 pm. The counsel further contended that thereafter, the tribunal should have deducted 1/4th income towards personal expenses of the deceased and then the multiplier of 18 should have been applied by the tribunal for the purpose of computation of compensation. The counsel also pointed out that the colleagues of the deceased are presently drawing Rs. 7,000-8,000 pm as their salary. The counsel submitted that the impugned award has been made by the tribunal in ignorance of the decision of the Apex Court in Trilok chandra vs. State of UP " ACJ 1998 831 (SC), wherein the highest bar of multiplier was raised to 18yrs due to inflation and devaluation of money, which is step ahead over the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerela state Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. " (1994) 2 SCC 176. The counsel maintained that in the said judgment of Susamma thomas (supra) , the Hon"ble Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 15,000 each, under the conventional heads of damages of loss of consortium and loss of estate, whereas the tribunal in the present case has only awarded a combined sum of Rs. 15,000 under these heads of damages. The counsel also urged that deceased had suffered mental pain and agony for about 6 days and therefore, the appellants should be compensated with at least Rs. 5000 on the said ground. The counsel also pleaded for enhancing the rate of interest from 12% pa as awarded by the tribunal to 15% pa.