P AZAD CHOUDHURY Vs. R RATHANALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals have been filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the award of compensation passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S.D.). Berhampur, in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1989 which is being impugned in M.A. No. 476 of 1992, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 72,000/ -, whereas in M.J.C. No. 11 of 1989 which is being impugned in M.A. No. 480 of 1992, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 90,000/ - to the respective claimants. Out of the aforesaid amounts, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 15,000/ - in each case and the balance was directed to be paid by the owner. Both the claim cases were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the present appellant is the owner of a bus bearing registration No. ORK 4554 which was proceeding from Maniguda to Rayagada on 26.10.1988. The claimant -respondent in M.A. No. 476 of 1992, the widow of deceased R. Sriram Murthy claimed that the deceased was travelling in the said bus as a conductor on the fateful day. In M.A. No. 480 of 1992, the claimant -respondent claimed that she along with her deceased husband N. Narayana Rao were travelling in the said bus as passengers. It is alleged in both the claim applications that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the bus met with an accident and capsized near Danger Banka, as a result of which both the deceased died on the spot. The Tribunal found that both the deceased were in fact passengers in the bus and taking their monthly income to be Rs. 750 and annual contribution to be Rs, 6,000/ -, it awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/ - and Rs. 90,000/ - applying multiplier of 12 and 15 respectively, keeping in view the age of the claimants and other relevant factors.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has next contended that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is unreasonably excessive. The claimant in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1989 (M.A. No. 476 of 1992) had claimed that her husband was doing business and was earning Rs. 1,000 per month. Though the Tribunal has discarded such statement of the claimant that her husband, aged about 45, was earning Rs. 1,000/ - per month, calculating on the basis of the income of an unskilled labourer, it held that the deceased in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1989 was earning Rs. 750/ - per month. The accident had taken place in 1988 and the Tribunal decided the case in June, 1992. When the minimum wages had been increased to Rs. 25/ - and possibly by that scale the Tribunal has calculated the monthly income to be Rs. 750. Taking Rs. 20/ - to be the minimum wages in the year 1988, monthly income of the deceased would have been around Rs. 600 and deducting Rs. 200/ - towards his personal expenditure, a balance of Rs. 400/ -would have been available for the benefit of family. The multiplier of 12 adopted by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable keeping in view the age of the deceased. Calculated on this basis and taking the annual dependency to be roughly a round figure of Rs. 5,000/ -, a sum of Rs. 60,000 would represent a fair compensation so far as the claimant in M.J.C. No. 12 of 1989 is concerned. Since the deceased was admittedly a passenger, out of the amount of Rs. 60,000/ -, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - is payable by the insurance company, as already directed by the Tribunal and the balance sum of Rs. 45,000/ - is payable by the appellant. The direction of the learned Tribunal regarding the compensation and the method of deposit of the amount of Rs. 15,000/ - payable by the insurance company is sustained. However, since the amount payable by the owner has been reduced, the direction regarding apportionment and the manner of deposit is required to be modified. Out of the sum of Rs. 45,000/ - along with 6 per cent interest payable from the date of filing of the claim application, a sum of Rs. 11,000/ - each be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the widow and her three children for a period of five years with provision for withdrawal of the quarterly interest and the balance amount along with the entire up -to -date interest be paid to the widow. The direction of the Tribunal regarding the payment of penal interest on account of the default is set aside.