Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari Devi & Others vs Kalimullah Khan And Another on 11 August, 2017
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 896 of 1995
Appellant :- Smt. Rajeshwari Devi & Others
Respondent :- Kalimullah Khan And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Rathore,A.K. Pandey,D.P. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- K.S. Amist,K.S. Amist
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballia dated 24.07.1995 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 8 of 1994.
It is a death case. According to the claimants the deceased Sahatoo Ram @ Har Narain was going by his cycle on Ballia road, on 06.12.1993 at about 4.30 p.m., when a Jeep bearing registration no. WBB-4345, moving at a very high speed and which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle of Sahatoo Ram @ Har Narain. In that accident Sahatoo Ram @ Har Narain received grievous injuries and died on the spot.
At the time of accident, the deceased Sahatoo Ram @ Har Narain was 55 years of age and was working as peon in the Collection Department of the Government of U.P. He was receiving salary of Rs. 2,119/- per month. Also, it was disclosed that there were five dependants of deceased Sahatoo Ram @ Har Narain being his wife and four children.
The Tribunal framed various issues. In respect of cause of accident, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the Jeep bearing registration no. WBB-4345. Also, it found that the aforesaid vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. respondent no.2 herein. In view of the fact, it was not a case of breach of terms of insurance policy, the Tribunal framed the award of compensation against the insurer.
On the issue of quantification, the Tribunal computed the annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,119/- per month. It thus worked out his annual income at Rs. 25,428/-. On this, he applied multiplier of 6 on the reasoning that the deceased had six years service left. It then reduced that figure by 1/3 being deduction on account of personal expenses. Thus total compensation amount of Rs. 1,01,712/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. Other amounts awarded were Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that undisputedly the age of deceased was not more than 54 years. He then submits the Tribunal has grossly erred in applying a multiplier of 6 inasmuch as the law in this regard is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another AIR 2009 SC 3104, where under multiplier of 11 should have been applied in view of deceased being 54 years of age.
Learned counsel for the insurer has opposed the aforesaid argument and submitted, in view of the fact that the deceased had only six years of service left, the Tribunal has not committed any mistake in applying multiplier of 6.
The accident itself had occurred on 06.12.1993 and almost 24 years have passed since then. Again the accident involved loss of life of a person who was in government job and would therefore, have been entitled to pension as well upon his retirement. Also, it cannot be loss sight of, pay-scale applicable to various government servants including the deceased are always subject to upward revision. Thus, it is equally possible, if the deceased had survived, he would have got a higher pay during his service tenure and would have also been entitled to higher pension during life time. These factors have not been worked into the determination of compensation by the Tribunal. Looked at from that prospective, I find that the compensation awarded at Rs. 1,03,000/- is too meagre.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I consider it proper to apply multiplier of 11 to estimate the total loss of income of the deceased which would then come to Rs. 25,428 x 11= 2,79,708/-. This would, at least some extent take care of pensionary and other benefits, to which the deceased would have been entitled.
Coming to the issue of personal expenses, it is seen that the deceased in this case had five dependants. Again applying the ratio of the judgement in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the deduction on account of personal expenses should have been 1/4 and not 1/3 as has been taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the deduction to be made on account of personal expenses would come to Rs. 69,927/-. Accordingly, the loss of dependency then comes out to Rs. 2,09,781/-.
Then, no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium which is awarded at Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant wife of the deceased. Again compensation at Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the four children of the deceased (@ Rs. 5,000/- per child) and Rs. 20,000/- is also awarded for pain and suffering to all the claimants. These amounts ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal.
The above calculation would lead to enhancement of Rs. 1,59,781/- for the purpose of making enhancement, the said amount at Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of personal expenses and cost of the litigation has to be discounted.
Accordingly, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified. The respondent no.2-insurer is now directed to pay the appellant claimants through the Tribunal, further a sum of Rs. 1,59,781/- together with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition to till date.
The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.8.2017
Lbm/-
