RULDA RAM Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for the death of a male aged twenty seven years. In the accident, apart from the deceased, his wife and son also died. The claim petition was filed by the parents.

(2.) WHILE determining the compensation quantum, the Tribunal found that the deceased was a mason, assessed his income at Rs. 1500/ - per month, took his contribution to the family at Rs. 800/ - and adopted a multiplier of 10 to arrive the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks for re -determination of the compensation in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121, as explained in the subsequent judgments, making provisions for prospect of increase in income even for a self employed person and for providing a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased and not to the claimants. While Sarla Verma's case explains that in case of claim by parents, contribution could be upto 50%, it was saying so in a situation where the deceased was a bachelor and with prospect of marriage and the contribution to the family that could be reduced, the Tribunal provided for 50% deduction. Here in this case, the deceased was not a bachelor and he had a wife and a child to attend to and his own contribution to the family, the Tribunal has taken as Rs. 800/ -. The prospect of future increase has been the subject of subsequent decisions but no consistent line of authorities are available but a three members Bench in Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, 2013 9 SCC 65, has observed that an addition of 50% to the actual salary could be made for future prospect. In Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company, 2012 6 SCC 421, the court provided for prospect of 30% increase for a 45 years old agriculturist said to be engaged in dairy business. Even as regards choice of multiplier, when the claimants are parents, there are two strings of authorities of the Supreme Court itself, one holding that the age of the parents must be the relevant criterion and the another holding the age of the deceased shall alone be relevant. However, for the sake of consistency in approach, I would adopt the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Ltd. and others, 2012 ACJ 2002 and hold that it should be the age of the deceased that would be relevant. Considering the fact that the death had occurred in the year 1994, I would take the average contribution to the parents at Rs. 1000/ - per month and apply a multiplier of 17 and take the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,04,000 lakhs. Adding Rs. 4,000/ - as funeral expenses and Rs. 7,000/ - as loss to estate, the total amount shall be '2.15 lakhs. The additional amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% also from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

(3.) ON the question of liability, the insurance company was exonerated on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and there was no policy of the insurance to cover for a passenger in goods vehicle. The owner has also filed cross -objection, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju Versus M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 AIR(SC) 2054 to contend that in a claim for damage to the vehicle the fact that the passengers more than the permitted persons were being carried cannot be taken to be a fundamental breach. To exclude the liability of the insurance company, I must observe that reliance on the judgment of B.V. Nagaraju's case is misplaced. This point is too well settled for a fresh consideration to be undertaken by this court for it was held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, 2003 AIR(SC) 607 that there was no requirement of the policy for a passenger in goods vehicle to be covered for ride under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable. The cross -objections by the owner would, therefore, required to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.