RAMJIT SINGH Vs. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred for setting aside/modifying the Judgment dated 20.11.2009 and Award dated 22.12.2009 in Claim Case No. 71 of 2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal"). In sum and substance, the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation amount. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Claims Tribunal has directed the Respondent No. 2/Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited to make payment of total compensation amount of Rs. 84,500/-, which included Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate. The total amount of compensation i.e. Rs.84,500/- was directed to be paid after deducting Rs. 50,000/-, which had already been paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Since the insurer/Respondent no. 2 has not raised any dispute or preferred appeal against impugned Judgment and Award of the Claims Tribunal, there is no requirement to discus the case in detail. However, short facts of the case is that on 26.3.2002 at 6.00 P.M., son of the appellants, namely, Purshottam Kumar alias Guddu was coming from Bikramganj with one Bishwanath Singh on a Motorcycle and while he reached near the Village-Gopalpur on Sasaram-Bikramganj Pakki Road, a Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-24H/0084 dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which both of them received injuries and both were brought to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, from where son of the appellants was referred to Varanasi. However, on way the son of the appellants succumbed to his injuries and, thereafter, an F.I.R. vide Nokha P.S. Case No. 50/2002 was registered under Sections 279, 338, 304(A), 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was an advocate and he was aged about 29 years old at the time of accident. Thereafter, claim petition was filed under the provisions of the M.V. Act, where in support of Claim Case number of witnesses were examined and number of documents were also brought on record. The claimants/appellants before the Claims Tribunal Asserted that their son was a practicing advocate and he was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was disclosed that the son of the appellants was also practicing in High Court with his Senior Counsel. Before the Claims Tribunal, the case was proved by the claimants and, as such, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim case and directed for making payment of amount of compensation as indicated above.

(2.) Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, while making a prayer for enhancement of compensation amount, has argued that once the claimants had taken specific stand that the deceased being an advocate was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month, the learned Claims Tribunal was not at all authorized to adopt notional income for calculating compensation amount, which was Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It was submitted that notional income is required to be taken only in a case, in which the deceased or injured was not having any income. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Column-6 of Schedule-ll to the M.V. Act. He submits that the Schedule-ll itself makes It clear that notional income for compensation shall be adopted in those cases in which the deceased or injured had no income prior to the accident. In the present case, it was submitted that the deceased, who was 29 years old, was an Advocate and consistent stand was that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and, as such, without any contrary material/evidence, the Tribunal was required to take into account that his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal was required to proceed and calculate the compensation amount. Secondly, it was argued that in the present case, the deceased was unmarried and his parents i.e. both the appellants and his one unmarried sister were completely dependent on the deceased. At the time of the filing of Claim Case, the appellant no. 2 i.e. mother of the deceased was about 55 years old and, as such, the multiplier of 11 was required to be taken into account, but the Claims Tribunal without any cogent material had taken multiplier of 8. It was submitted that in such cases, where the age of the claimant/appellant no. 2 was disclosed as about 55 years, then in that event taking 55 years of age multiplier of 11 was required to be taken into account. He submits that multiplier of 8, which was adopted by the Claims Tribunal in the claim case, was applicable in those in which age was 55 years and not exceeding 60 years. He submits that the Apex Court has clarified the position in such cases. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Judgments General Manager, Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 and also U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors,1996 4 SCC362 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was argued that the compensation amount in the present case is required to be enhanced. He submitted that after deducting interim compensation amount paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, a meager amount i.e. Rs. 34,500/- only was directed to be paid to the appellants. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Judgment and Award requires modification.

(3.) Sri MP. Jaiswal, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2/United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Sri Rajni Kant Singh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle.