JAYA PANDEY Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th June, 1999 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 27 of 1998.

(2.) BRIEFLY stating the facts are that one Alok Kumar Pandey son of Hari Narain Pandey, resident of Indumati Path, Vikramshila Nagar, Kahalgaon died in motor accident on 9.10.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration no. BR -10 A 8035 on way to Hospital. The wife, minor children and mother of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 7,84,168/ - under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act for his death. The deceased was aged about 33 years and was a Government servant earning Rs. 4282/ - per month and according to the claimants there was bright prospect of promotion of the deceased. The Bus was owned by Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 was the Driver. Respondent nos. 3 & 4 are Insurer of the Bus. The owner and the Insurer appeared and filed separate written statement contesting the claim. In support of their case the parties led evidence and the Tribunal on consideration of the same has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,17,600/ - besides Rs. 10,000/ - as loss of consolitium (sicconsortium ?) loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Out of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/ - was paid by way of adinterim compensation and, therefore, after holding that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation directed the Insurer to pay Rs. 3,77,600/ - along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 21st April, 1998 within one month. The Tribunal has also mentioned the manner in which the compensation amount is to be utilised on the interest of minor children, mother and wife of the deceased. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the owner or the Insurer. In the present appeal, the Claimant -appellants have only challenged the method applied by the Tribunal for the award of compensation amount.

(3.) IT is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of promotion as well as pay revision and only monthly income of the deceased getting at the time of death has been considered for the purpose of compensation, which is contrary to the order of the Division Bench passed in the case of Kumari Anupama & anr. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 382 of 1999 disposed of on 11.12.2001). According to him, after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G. M. Kerala SRTC V/s. Susamma Thomas, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, the legislature has brought major changes in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 to be effective from 14.11.1994. As such, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, adopting of the multiplier 12 is not permissible in terms of Section 163A of the Act. According to him, till Section 163A of the Act is not declared ultra vires, the Tribunal is bound to follow and pass award in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.