MERY ROY Vs. NISHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 22.10.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No.141/2010. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,46,200/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one David who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent.

(2.) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occured, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver either by way of cross appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that David was only son of his parents. Learned Tribunal after assessing the income @ Rs.6.000/- per month, deducted half of the amount towards personal expenses and after deducting 10% on account of taxes, applied the multiplier of 13 for assessing the loss of dependency. Learned counsel submits that deceased was prosecuting B.E. course in Electronics and Communication and was in third year. It is submitted that in the evidence it is shown that brother- in-law of deceased was also an engineering student and he was getting Rs.50,000/- per month. It is submitted that without taking into consideration the future prospects learned Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.6,000/- per month which is too less. It is submitted that deduction of 10% on account of taxes is also illegal as half of the amount has already been deducted. The application of multiplier of 13 is on lower side looking to the age of appellant No.1 who was 40-45 years. It is submitted that multiplier ought to have been applied keeping in view the age of deceased which was 23 years. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of P.S. Somnathan v. District Insurance Officer [2011ACJ 737], wherein Hon'ble apex Court has held that compensation has to be computed on the basis of age of the deceased. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.3397/2012. So far as income and future prospects are concerned, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2010 ACJ 2867], wherein injured was 25 years and brilliant student of mechanical engineering final year in a reputed college having passed all his semester examination with distinction, suffered 25% permanent disablement and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses which was enhanced by the High Court by a sum of Rs.2 lacs towards non-pecuniary losses, the Hon'ble apex Court was of the view that income should be taken as Rs.60,000/- per annum and loss of earning capacity @ Rs.42.000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs.9,06.000/ In this case, injured Arvind Mishra met with an accident on 23.6.1993. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of victim of Uphaar Tragedy [2012 ACJ 48], wherein death of several persons above the age of 20 years due to fire in Cinema Hall and High Court awarded Rs.18 lacs for death of each of the person by way of public law remedy and apex Court reduced the amount to Rs.10 lacs with liberty to claimants to seek higher remedy wherever they are not satisfied with compensation. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced accordingly.