R S R T C Vs. RAMESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been directed against the Award, dated 17-1-1994, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 180/91, awarding Rs. 4,80,000/- to the claimants on account of loss of dependency; Rs. 40,000/- on account of deprivation of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- on account of physical and mental agony. The Tribunal found that the deceased Vijay Singh, at the time of accident was 22 years of age. He was doing business of selling milk and also cultivation. According to the statement of A.W. 1 Rameshwari, widow of deceased and A.W. 2 Khillo, mother of the deceased, the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. Deceased used to spend 1/4 amount of his income on himself and 3/4th income on his family. The learned Judge determined the amount of dependency at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per year and after applying multiplier of 40 awarded compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/ - on account of loss of dependency. The only submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the Award of compensation is on higher side and contrary to the settled law. His submission is that in case Rs. 1,20,000/- are deposited in any Nationalised Bank, the claimants will get Rs. 1,000 / p.m. by way of interest and the corpus will remain in tact. The learned Judge of the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 40. It cannot be more than 10. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 : (AIR 1994 SC 1631), General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.).

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the claimants submits that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 22 years. The learned Judge of the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 40. He submits that when from the evidence of record it has been established that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and further that the deceased used to spend Rs. 1500/- p.m. on his family, there was no question of determining loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. He submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded to the claimants cannot be said to be excessive.

(3.) From the statements of A.W. 1 Rameshwari (Wife) and A. W. 2 Khillo (Mother) it has been proved that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and he was spending Rs.500/- on himself. The remaining amount was spent by him on his family and under these circumstances the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1500/- per month and not Rs. 1,000/- p.m. as determined by the Tribunal. The deceased was doing the business of selling of milk and cultivation. It has been stated by the aforesaid witnesses that Kyali, father of the deceased is Khatedar of the agriculture-lands, which were cultivated by both Kyali and deceased. It has been further admitted by the witnesses that Bahadur aged 20 years is younger brother of the deceased Vijay Singh. There is no evidence that there were chances of increase of income of the deceased.