GOPAL KANWAR Vs. DARBARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a motor accident that took place on 7.5.1990 involving truck No. RRB 4467 which is alleged to have been driven negligently and rashly by the respondent No. 1, one Om Prakash Singh was hit and died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The vehicle belongs to the respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. The widow of the deceased and his parents moved a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') for the award of a total compensation of Rs. 14,40,000. The learned Tribunal after receiving evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,21,200 only. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimants -appellants have preferred this appeal. At the time of accident, the deceased was stated to be 25 years of age. The learned Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs. 1,800 per month and dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800. The multiplier of '22' was determined by the learned Tribunal and on the basis thereof, the learned Tribunal has calculated a compensation of Rs. 2,21,200 on account of the loss of dependency.

(2.) IN the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the multiplier cannot exceed '18'. At the age of 25 years as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier should be '17'. Therefore, in the present case in hand, the multiplier should be determined at '17' and not '22' as determined by the learned Tribunal. While determining the loss of dependency, the future prospects and the increase in the income of the deceased should not be lost sight of. The learned Tribunal has assessed Rs. 1,800 per month as the income of the deceased when he died as a result of the accident at the age of 25 years. In my opinion, if the future prospects and increase in the income is added thereto, the income would come to Rs. 3,600 per month. If 1/3rd is deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, dependency of the claimants -appellants would come to Rs. 2,400 per month or Rs. 28,800 per year. With reference to the multiplier of '17', the total amount comes to Rs. 4,89,600. To this, Rs. 15,000 should be added on account of loss of consortium and love suffered by the widow of the deceased and Rs. 5,000 each on account of the loss of affection and care suffered by the parents. Thus, in my opinion, the claimants -appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,89,600 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 5,14,600. In my opinion, therefore, the claimants -appellants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,14,600 instead of Rs. 2,21,200 as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The total amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,14,600 from Rs. 2,21,200 as awarded by the learned Tribunal. To this extent, the award shall stand modified. Rest part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.