UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MOINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.94 passed by Shri S.K. Chaudhary, 1st Additional Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 155/90 thereby and thereunder the claim case preferred by claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 was allowed and it was ordered that claimant will be entitled to realise Rs. 1,52,760/ from the appellant Insurance Company, and further the same amount for Chandra Bhushan Prasad Sinha, the owner of the car who is respondent No. 3 here.

(2.) THE fact in short for the purpose of this appeal is that claimant's son Md. Mobin was the driver of car bearing No. DIA 7093 and on 27.5.90 he was driving aforesaid car and at about 4 P.M. when he reached near Romi Bunglow within Barhi P.S. then a tracker bearing No. BPM 4745 belonging to the respondent No. 2, Jagni was Pandey, came with a great speed and dashed against the car due to negligence on the part of the driver due to that Mobin was seriously injured and he was taken to hospital where he died immediately. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 the father of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim case which was allowed in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order the appellant Insurance Company preferred this appeal mainly for the reason that excessive amount of compensation has been awarded.

(3.) SO far as quantum of compensation is concerned the Tribunal specifically recorded a finding that the income of the deceased being a driver was Rs. 1,000/ p.m. only but this income was multiplied by 38 times which is apparently wrong in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 ACJ Vol. 2 page 831 because now the total dependency of the family should not be multiplied more than 18 times. Keeping in view the principle enuciated by the Apex Court if monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/ and if 1/3rd of the amount is to be deducted for his personal expenses then the total dependancy of the family comes to Rs. 650/ p.m. and if this amount is multiplied by 12 the annual dependancy comes to Rs. 7,800/ . As the deceased died leaving behind only one claimant i.e. his father who is aged about 55 years or at the time of accident so naturally it may be accepted that the deceased may get some portion form his son upto the age of 70 years or so. If that is so the annual dependancy of Rs. 7,800/ if multiplied by 15 then it comes to Rs. 1,17,000/ and in ground figure Rs. 1,20,000/ . Accordingly, I am of opinion that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation on higher side and the claimant is entitled to realise. Rs. 1,20,000/ in all for the death of his son who was working as driver.