JUDGEMENT
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the award dated December 3,
2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.75/2011. The Tribunal directed the respondent
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - to pay a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/ - to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal has
been filed by the appellant -claimant.
Briefly the facts of this case are as follows:
3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR -56 -6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents.
3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant asked for compensation of Rs. 20,20,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respondents/opposite parties. The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following issues were framed: -
"1. Whether on dated 26.11.2010 the motor cycle of the deceased Sandeep Chauhan Chasis no. MD2DSPAZZTPE51258, Engine no. IBVBTF91396 Model Discover, Time: at about 10 PM at Malvia Chowk, then a driver of Truck bearing registration No. HR -56 -6047 brought from the front side with high speed and careless and hit the motor cycle going on the side, due to which Sandeep Chauhan received many injuries and due to that injuries and the motor cycle was damaged and the injured Sandeep Chauhan was died to while taking him to the hospital? (sic)
2. Whether the motor used while accidence was having insurance, D.L., Fitness Registration etc. and was permitted to use?(sic)
3. Whether the petition of the claimants is contaminated from the required facts?
4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? ''
3.3 The Tribunal held that on November 26, 2010, Driver Binder Singh while driving Truck No. HR -56 -6047 with speed and carelessness in the centre of the road, hit the motorcycle of Sandeep Chauhan, as a result of which Sandeep Chauhan was seriously injured and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The issues were also discussed by the Tribunal which further held that accidental vehicle was permitted to be driven with legal and effective documents and driving licenses.
3.4 On the issue of compensation the Tribunal after taking into account all the facts and materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that since the claimant could not prove that the deceased was getting Rs. 7,000/ - per month as salary the Tribunal following the principle enunciated in an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, held that notional annual income of the deceased was Rs. 36,000/ -. The Tribunal also followed the principle laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and held that one third share from the notional income of the deceased should be deducted as his personal expenses to calculate compensation on the basis of the notional annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the deceased 's father, mother and wife were dependents on the deceased and they should be treated as dependents of the deceased. The multiplier of 17 was fixed by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased who was 26 years of age at the time of the accident. After taking into account all these aspects, Tribunal came to the conclusion and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 4,08,000/ - and further granted Rs. 5,000/ - for cremation, Rs. 5,000/ - for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/ - for loss of consortium and thereby the compensation amount was determined at Rs. 4,28,000/ - and also directed that interest to be paid at the rate of 6% per annum on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of decision.
3.5 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that there was no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal has been filed.
(3.)WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said award is wrong
on the ground that a salary certificate has been produced before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal has not accepted the same without any reason.
She further submitted that the compensation which has been granted by the
Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court does not include the future
prospects which should have been added to the claim and further the
deduction with regard to the personal expenses could not have been made
more than one tenth of the total salary received by the victim. In
support of such contention, she relied upon Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC 421] and further submitted
that compensation under the head 'loss of consortium ' has not been
properly assessed by the said Tribunal which has been assessed by this
Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh [(2013) 9 SCC 54] and the compensation
under the said head should have been awarded for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. She further submitted that the compensation under the head 'funeral expenses ' should have been granted as Rs. 25,000/ - and in support of her such contention, she relied upon the aforementioned
decisions. On the contrary, it has been stated on behalf of the
respondents that in Sarla Verma (supra), the principles laid down by this
Court have been followed by the Tribunal and therefore there is no reason
to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal
dismissed by the High Court.