BULBUL CHAKRABARTTY Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the award dated 30.7.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the claim petition filed by the appellants on account of the death of Sh. Prosod Chakrabartty as a result of a road accident that occurred on 29.8.1982. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the appellants herein claimed an amount of Rs. 3,50,000.00 as just and fair compensation on account of death of Sh. Prosod Chakrabartty as a result of the aforesaid road accident.

(2.) The appellants, as petitioners, alleged that on 29.8.82 when the deceased was coming from his house at Shalimar Bagh and was going towards Irwin Hospital, he was hit by bus No. DHP-3767 near the Old Secretariat Gate, Civil Lines, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and thereafter he died. It was stated in the said petition that the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 17,000.00 per annum as he was working as a Draftsman in M/s. Hastinapur Matels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. It was also alleged that the aforesaid bus was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, who was respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. The aforesaid claim petition was contested by the respondents and on the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed in the aforesaid proceedings. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 30.7.87 passed an award for Rs. 1,49,000.00 with costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment of the awarded amount in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and against the respondents directing respondent No. 2 to pay the aforesaid amount. Seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein, who were the claimants before the Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Goel appearing for the appellants submitted that the findings arrived at by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the effect that the dependency of Rs. 950.00 to be reasonable is erroneous. He also submitted that the multiplier used in the present case as 13 was on the lower side when considered in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631, U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362, Sarla Dixit (Smt.) & Another vs. Balwant Yadav and Others reported in (1996) Vol. 3 SCC 179 and also the decision in Spring Meadows Hospital & Another vs. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Another reported in 1998 (2) SCALE. In support of his contention that the Tribunal acted illegally and erred in law and facts in not taking into consideration the factor of future prospects and increase in the earnings of the deceased while making assessment of just and fair compensation he relied upon the decision of Samla Dixit (Supra).