ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANGALA RAJENDRA KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment in as much as the challenge in both the Appeals is to the Judgment and Award made in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal case No. 35 of 1988 filed by the original claimants seeking compensation on account of death of one Rajendra Kataria in a motor accident. The first to fifth respondents in First Appeal No.58 of 1996 are the original claimants. The claimants are the appellants in First Appeal No.582 of 1998. The parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their description in First Appeal No.48 of 1996.

(2.) THE deceased Rajendra and others were travelling by a matador bearing registration No. MXV-7960 from Bombay towards Ahmednagar. The accident took place on 27th July, 1987 in the early morning at 1.30. A truck bearing No. MTL 6010 came from the opposite direction and gave a dash to the matador. The 7th respondent herein is the owner of the truck and the 6th respondent was driving the truck at the relevant time. The 8th respondent is the owner of the matador. The truck was insured with the appellant and the matador was insured with the 9th respondent. The Tribunal recorded a finding that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.4,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum at the date of the claim petition till the realization of the amount.

(3.) I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The first issue is regarding the quantum of compensation. One Surendra Gatariya, the brother of the deceased was examined as a witness. He stated that the annual income of the deceased from his business was about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. He stated that the deceased had paid income tax of about Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- in the year 1987-88. Thus, even if the said evidence is accepted as correct, the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.30,000/- per year. There is no evidence adduced to show that they were prospects of increase in the earnings of the deceased. It is true that the multiplier of 10 was on the lower side and multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied as the age of the deceased was 29 years. An amount of equivalent to 1/4 of the total income ought to have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased as the number of dependents were 5.