RAM CHANDER AND ANOTHER Vs. SUBHASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal against the order has been filed by Ram Chander-father and Smt.Chanderpati, mother of Sandeep (since deceased) challenging the award, dated 23.10.2008, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for brevity,'the Tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs. 1,80,000.00 (Rupees one lac and eighty thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the appellant-claimants.

(2.) The factum of accident and the death of Sandeep (since deceased) in the said accident, due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of Jeep Trax bearing registration No.HR- 99D-5606 (Temp.) by driver-cum-owner of the said vehicle, Subhash, are not in dispute at the appellate stage. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account all the parameters laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court while passing the award in favour of the appellant-claimants. To elaborate his submissions, it was submitted that Sandeep was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand only) per month. Learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to the tune of Rs. 2,100.00 (Rupees two thousand and one hundred only). The same may be taken as it is while evaluating the just compensation to be awarded to the claimants. He further points out that the learned Tribunal has failed to add 50% of the monthly income in the monthly income of Sandeep (since deceased) as future prospects. He also points out that in view of the law laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , and the latest judgment by Honourable the Supreme Court in the matter of Munna Lal Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2015(5) JT 1 (Supreme Court) , the appropriate multiplier should have been of 18. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the appropriate amount for love and affection for the loss of the son of the appellant-claimants. It has also been pointed out that a meagre sum of Rs. 12,000.00 (Rupees twelve thousand only) against the settled norms of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) has been awarded for the transportation and the last rites of Sandeep (since deceased). He also points out that the interest awarded @ 7.5% per annum is also on the lower side. In the matters of Neeta and others Vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 2015 ACJ 598 , and Jitendra Khim Shankar Trivedi Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar, 2015 ACJ 708 , Honourable the Supreme Court had awarded the interest @ 9% per annum.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms.Shamsher Kaur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has not disputed the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the monthly income of Sandeep. However, she submits that in the present case, the age of the parents should be considered instead of age of the deceased while applying the appropriate multiplier system. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti Pathak and others, 2007 ACJ 2188 . She is fair in her submissions that the learned Tribunal has failed to award the appropriate amount for love and affection on account of death of the young son of the claimants. Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has also fairly admitted that as per the judgment passed by Honourable the Supreme Court, the transportation and the funeral expenses should be Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) instead of Rs. 12,000.00 (Rupees twelve thousand only). Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company further submits that the learned Tribunal has already awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement in that respect.