SHANTI Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants/appellants aggrieved against the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon ('Tribunal' for short) vide its judgment and award dated 1.6.1994 have filed this appeal. Smt. Shanti (appellant No.1) and Inder Singh (appellant No.2) widow and son respectively of Amar Singh filed a petition for claiming compensation on account of the death of Amar Singh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 4.12.1992.

(2.) THE case of the appellants is that the offending truck No.DHG 1497 being driven by Narinder Kumar (respondent No.1) came from the opposite direction and hit Amar Singh who died at the spot. The learned Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck No.DHG 1497 being driven by Narinder Kumar (respondent No.1). The monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1000/ -. In the post -mortem report (Ex.PE), the age of deceased Amar Singh was mentioned as 50 years. In the circumstances, a multiplier of 10 had been applied. Thus, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1000/ - and deducting 1/3rd of his income for his personal expenses, the dependency was worked out to Rs. 80,000/ -. The driver and owner (respondents No.1 and 2); besides, the Insurance Company (respondent No.3) of the offending vehicle it was held shall be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 77, a multiplier of 13 should have been applied. Besides, it is submitted that no amount of compensation has been awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Learned counsel for the appellants cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 54for claiming funeral expenses and loss of consortium. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon has submitted that the accident had occurred on 4.12.1992 and the judgments that are cited have been pronounced now by the Supreme Court and are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The income of the deceased Amar Singh has been assessed at Rs. 1000/ - per month, out of which 1/3rd was deducted for his personal expenses and a multiplier of 10 was applied. In fact the age of Amar Singh (deceased in the case) has been taken to be 50 years at the time of his demise. Therefore, in view of Sarla Verma's case , a multiplier of 13 is liable to be applied. By deducting 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.333/ -) from Rs. 1000/ - towards personal expenses of Amar Singh, the monthly amount which the appellants were getting and dependent on works out to Rs. 667/ -. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 8004/ - and by applying a multiplier of 13, it comes to Rs. 1,04,052/ - which is liable to be awarded instead of the amount of Rs. 80,000/ - that had been awarded. In Rajesh's case insofar as loss of consortium is concerned, it was held by the Supreme Court as follows: -