Delhi High Court
Krishna Wanti vs B.D. Bansal And Ors. on 11 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: I (2006) ACC 578, 2006 ACJ 2866
Author: S Khanna
Bench: S Khanna
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.3.2003 praying for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
2. The appellant herein is the mother of Vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar was hit by an Ambassador car bearing registration No. DBB 4029 on 29.8.1990 at about 9.45 p.m., while riding a bicycle. He ultimately expired on 2.9.1990.
3. On the question of compensation the learned Tribunal found that there is nothing on record to prove and show that the deceased was earning between Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month as claimed. Vijay Kumar was running a kirana shop on rent and the Claims Tribunal held that it can be assumed that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1,500 per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter taking into account the age of the claimant who was 57 years old, applied multiplier of 8 and has awarded an amount of Rs. 96,000 as compensation. In addition a sum of Rs. 4,000 was also awarded to her towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the multiplier applied in the present case of 8 is low keeping in view the fact that the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of the accident.
4. I do not find any merit in the said contention. In the present case admittedly the age of the mother, i.e., the claimant was 57 years and accordingly the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 8. The same cannot be said to be unreasonable and unjust. The deceased was 26 years old and normally would have got married. As held by Claims Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased, in case the dependants are parents, their age would be also a relevant factor in determining the multiplier. No fault can be found with the same.
5. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,000 for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses to the claimant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments of this Court in the cases of Swaran Kant Seth v. Vijay Aggarwal and Daya Arora v. Kapur Singh . It is submitted that a higher amount should have been awarded towards loss of love and affection as the mother has lost a young son and he would have been of extreme use and help in her old age.
6. In the two judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded to claimants on account of pain and suffering. However, it cannot be said that the amount awarded in the said cases has to be universally applied. There cannot be any hard and fast rule. As held in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Mahadeva Shetty , compensation should be just and not a bonanza. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the claimant has five other children, i.e., 3 sons and 2 daughters. Nevertheless, I feel that a sum of Rs. 4,000 which has been awarded towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc., is on the lower side. Loss of a young son in prime youth after you have brought him up is always painful. The said amount is enhanced to Rs. 20,000. The enhanced amount be paid by the insurance company, respondent No. 3, within a period of 6 weeks along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from today. The above appeal is accordingly disposed of.
