UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARSWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.3.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 59 of 1996 by Vth Additional District Judge -cum -Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,84,000/ - by way of final compensation in favour of the claimant against the appellant company.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that one Nandu Mandat ultimately died of falling down from the Bus bearing Registration no. B.R. 17 B -6261 on 14.6.1996 because of its rash and negligent driving and for the said accident Amarpur RS. Case No. 102 of 1996 was registered and charge sheet was submitted under Sections 279 and 304 I.P.C. Deceased was unmarried and died leaving behind the claimant who is his mother. The deceased was aged about 22 years and used to work as Tube well Mechanic and earn a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. On account of the death of her son claimant lost her bread earner. An objection was filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1 as also on behalf of the appellant -company. The tribunal on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was about Rs. 1500/ - per month, and thus, his yearly income has been determined as Rs. 18,000/ -. Out of this amount 1/

(3.) RD has been deducted by way of personal expenditure of the deceased had he been alive and the contribution of the deceased towards his family has been calculated to be Rs. 12,000/ -, keeping in view the age of the deceased (which appears to be mistake on the face of the record as multiplier applied is 15 of the 2nd Schedule of the Act which is applicable with respect to those who are above 40 years but not exceeding 45 years) the amount payable to the claimant has been determined as Rs. 1,80,000/ - to which Rs. 4,000/ - has been added by way of loss of estate and funeral expenditure. Thus, Rs. 1,84,000/ - has been determined by the Tribunal as the total amount payable to the claimant. 3. Initially learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the law settled the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier by 15 on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent which was higher. According to him as per the law settled the multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased or age of the dependent which ever is higher. However, having realised the fact that multiplier by 15 has been applied which is applicable with respect to those who are even (sic above ?) 40 years but not exceeding 45 years whereas the deceased was aged only 22 years did not press the said point. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier to the facts of the present case and not the principle regading earning by way of interest on appropriate investment to meet the contribution for dependency. in support of this he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum V/s. Susamma Thomas & ors. reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176 and of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Most. Meena Devi & ors. (MA No. 53 of 1999 disposed of on 27.11.1999). According to him in the present case the compensation awarded would have been much lesser if the said principle as decided in the said cases would have been applied.