USHA DEVI Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) USHA Devi mother, Punam, Kirni and Suman minor sisters of Ravi have preferred the claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Ravi in a motor vehicular accident. Shish Pal had also died in the same accident and his widow Jalwanti etc. also filed the claim petition and both the claim petitions were decided by the common judgment dated 20.1.2003, passed by Sh. J.R. Chauhan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal.

(2.) AS per allegations of the claimants, on 8.10.2001 Ravi alongwith Shish Pal, his cousin brother was coming from Kalayat to village Pinjupura after closing their shop on bicycle. Ravi was sitting on the carrier of the cycle. Jitender Singh s/o Sinu Ram resident of village Pinjupura, was also coming from village Kalayat to village Pinjupura on his bicycle behind the cycle of Shish Pal. Shish Pal was plying his cycle on left side of the road. At about 8.00 p.m. when they reached near Gaushala land within the area of Kalayat, a white car bearing registration No. HR-01 J/7887 DCT came from Narwana side being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and hit the bicycle of Shish Pal. Due to said accident, Shish Pal and Ravi alongwith bicycle fell down on the road and head of Ravi struck against the pucca road and due to head injury, he died at the spot. Shish Pal also died later on. A case vide FIR No. 163 dated 8.10.2001 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1. It is further pleaded that deceased Ravi was aged 18 years and was earning Rs.2,400/- per month. An amount of Rs.6 lacs has been claimed a compensation. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement alleging that deceased was un-employed and had no income. False FIR has been registered against respondent No.1 by the complainant. Respondent No.3 Insurance company also denied the contents of the claim petition and have taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi that driver was not holding a valid driving licence. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(3.) NOW, reverting to the amount of compensation, I have scanned the file. The claimant Usha Devi has stated that Ravi was serving on the shop and was getting salary of Rs.2,400/- or Rs.2,500/- per month. The monthly income of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.2,400/- per month in the claim petition. So, keeping in view the statement, income of the deceased Ravi is taken as Rs.2,400/- per month. Usha Devi has given her age as 40-45 years. Deceased was un-married and as such age of the parents is relevant factor for determining the multiplier. So, as per authority reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 41 to 45 years is 14. The dependency has to be calculated by deducting of the amount, where the deceased is unmarried. So, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.1,200/- and the yearly dependency comes to Rs.14,400/- ( 1200 X 12 ). By applying the multiplier of 14, the amount comes to Rs.2,01,600/- ( 14,400 X 14 ) and by allowing the amount in respect of funeral expenses etc., the appellants are held entitled to claim Rs.2,10,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to claim interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The amount shall be shared equally between the living heirs of Ravi. The appeal stands accepted to that extent. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as ordered by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.