RAMSOBAI Vs. SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of quantum of compensation. Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found contributory negligence and reduced the compensation by 50%. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the dependency was Rs. 500/- per month and has applied the multiplier of 12 and determined the compensation at Rs. 72,000/-. On account of contributory negligence compensation is reduced to Rs. 36,000/-. The mental agony is determined at Rs. 5,000/- to claimant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/-each to other claimants which comes to Rs. 11,000/- and by adding this Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 72,000/- the amount comes to Rs. 83,000/- and similarly for other damages loss of consortium of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant No. 1 and claimant Nos. 3,5 and 6 have been awarded Rs. 2,000/- each.

(2.) THE accident took place on 14.10.1987. The claim petition was filed under Section 110 of Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for appellant submitted that the reason in awarding compensation is too vague and referred to the judgment in the case of Jyoti Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. reported in 2000 (3) MPHT 222, wherein it is held that multiplier method provided under 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is logically sound and well settled and other method should be applied only in exceptional cases. In this case the deceased died in a road accident in the year 1988 and considering the scope of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. , wherein it is held that the multiplier method is logically sound and well settled. It was held that the principle of multiplier would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and looking to the facts of the case Tribunal has assigned good reasons for applying the multiplier of 15. This was in addition to taking into consideration that the predecessors of the' deceased lived more than 80 years. High Court reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10 without taking into circumstances considered by the Tribunal and thus committed the error. Apex Court set aside the findings of the High Court only to the extent of the application of multiplier and uphold other findings including reduction of rate of interest and directed for application of multiplier of 15. In the aforesaid judgment age of the deceased was not mentioned. However, the High Court has taken a view that the deceased was likely to superannuate after 8 years, hence multiplier was reduced from 15 to 10. Thus, from this fact it appears that the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, Counsel for appellant submitted that multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in this case. Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 12. Counsel for appellant then also referred to another judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Jyoti Kaul, judgment of this Court in which multiplier of 10 was applied. In this judgment at the time of death age of the deceased was 50 years. However, this judgment is modified by Apex Court in the judgment of Jyoti Kaul (supra).

(3.) IN the facts of the case it is alleged that the deceased was sitting in a truck and has jumped from the window of the truck on the road. Immediately after jumping over the road a scooter dashed against him which caused his death. Tribunal found this is a case of contributory negligence as deceased has jumped on the road which is a Highway. The accident took place on National Highway, Agra-Bombay Road. No error is committed by the Tribunal in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.