ROZI AND OTHERS Vs. SUBHASH CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants, who are the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased-Parmod Kumar. They had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for claiming compensation on account of death of Parmod Kumar in an accident, which took place on 12.02.2004. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of the Act, under no fault liability alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. As mentioned earlier, the accident took place on 12.02.2004. Deceased-Parmod Kumar was driving a car bearing registration No.HR- 31B-2555 and was returning from Delhi. At about 7.00 p.m., a car bearing registration No.HR-25F-2260 came from the opposite side and was being driven rashly and negligently. It hit the car being driven by Parmod Kumar which fell into the ditches. As a result of the accident, Parmod Kumar received multiple injuries and died on the way to hospital. Later on, it transpired that the offending vehicle bore registration No.DL-6CH-6527 and was a stolen vehicle. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Regarding deceasedParmod Kumar, it was stated in the claim petition that he was twenty five years of age and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a driver. Thus, claim of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation was made.

(2.) Subhash Chand, S/o Sh. Gopal Chand (owner of the offending vehicle) inter alia, pleaded that his car had been snatched at gun-point by some un-known persons and that he had got an FIR registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi, under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondent No.2-New India Assurance Company Limited (insurer of the offending vehicle) pleaded no liability on the ground that the car was being driven by an unauthorized person resulting in violation of the terms of the certificate of insurance.

(3.) On examination of the evidence on record, the Tribunal returned a finding of fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The income of the deceased-Parmod Kumar was assessed as Rs.2100/- per month being minimum wages for an un-skilled labourer because no evidence was produced on the record regarding his income. The widow of Parmod Kumar appeared as PW-1 and stated that he was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas in the claim petition his monthly income was stated to be Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased in accordance with minimum wages being drawn by an un-skilled labourer. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 16 by holding the age of the deceased to be less than twenty five years based on Ex.P-3, his matriculation certificate, which recorded the date of birth as 12.12.1981. The finding that the deceased-Parmod Kumar was less than twenty five years of age on the date of the accident cannot be faulted. However, the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is excessive. Admittedly, the deceased is survived by his widow, two minor children and aged parents. Thus, there are five dependents of the deceased and therefore, a deduction of 1/4th only was permissible as laid down by the larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017. Following the dictum of the said judgment, multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is also incorrect; it should have been 18 in view of the fact that the deceased was less than twenty five years of age. The Tribunal has also erred in not granting increase on account of future prospects, which should have been 40%, in view of his age.