CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HAVING lost their young son, having been paid a meager amount of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation, the appellants have challenged the award dated 13. 5. 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur for enhancement.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 11. 5. 1991 the appellants son Anant was travelling in a bus, bearing Registration No. RRO 6244, as a passenger. In the morning around 5. 00 AM the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted into an accident. Because of the impact, the bus feel into a ditch. Consequently, Anant suffered injuries and subsequently, he scummed to the said injuries. At the time of his death, the deceased was 17 years old according to his parents. THErefore, the appellants-the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, they examined two witnesses and submitted eight documents. THE respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, neither examined any witness, nor submitted evidence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a lump sum of Rs. 75,000/ -. Hence, this appeal before this Court by the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that while granting a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, the learned Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons based on law. It has merely deducted its reasoning on the basis of the case law. However, each case depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. A compensation paid in one case cannot be taken as a settled principle of law. Secondly, that subsequent to Schedule-II attached to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (henceforth to e referred to as `the Act', for short) coming into force, the learned Tribunal should have used the said Schedule as a guideline. However, the learned Tribunal has totally ignored the provisions of the said Schedule-II of the Act. Therefore, it has not applied the correct law. Thirdly, according to the Schedule-II of the Act, the income of a non- earing person should be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The said amount is not subject to any deduction of 1/3 of the income. Fourthly, looking to the age of the parents i. e. 48 years, then according to the Schedule-II, in case a person is aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 should be applied. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the multiplier method. In order to buttress his contentions he has relied on the case of Manju Devi and Another vs. Musafir Paswan and Another (2005 (1) T. A. C. 609 (SC ). On the other hand, Mr. S. P. Tyagi and Mr. A. K. Bhandari, the learned counsels for the respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, have argued that in the case of Shanti Bai and others vs. Charan Singh and others (1998 ACJ 848), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had increased the compensation from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- in case of death of a minor. Therefore, in the present case, the compensation can be increased only up to Rs. 1,50,000/- and not more. According to them, a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for an accident that occurred in the year 1995 is more than just and reasonable. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned award. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a precedent cannot be used as though it is a provision of law, as each case has to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case. Therefore, merely because a particular-amount has been paid by way of compensation in the case of Shanti Bai and others (supra), it would not create a binding precedent. In the case of Manju Devi and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a multiplier method should be adhered to as it introduces uniformity and certainty to the award made all over the country. The Schedule-II of the Act was introduced by the Legislature in its wisdom in order to bring about uniformity to the award throughout the country. Therefore, the Schedule II of the Act should have been used by the learned Tribunal as a binding guideline. According to the Schedule-II of the Act, in case the deceased is a non-earing person, then the court shall presume that he was earing Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In the present case the deceased was also a non-earing person, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have presumed his income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Moreover, according to the Schedule- II, a multiplier of 13 should have been applied, taking the average age of the parents as being 48 years. Thus, the loss of dependency should have been calculated as 15000 x 13 = Rs. 1,95,000/ -. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the appellants instead of a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/ -.
(3.) IN the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 13. 5. 1997 is modified to the extent that the appellants shall be paid Rs. 1,95,000/- along with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award i. e. 13. 5. 1997 and from the date of filing of this appeal i. e. 30. 7. 1997 till the date of realization, they shall be entitled to only 9% interest per annum. Since this Court is informed that Rs. 75,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, has already been paid to the appellants, the said amount shall be adjusted in the enhanced compensation. Therefore, the interest need to be paid only on the enhanced amount as indicated above. The learned Tribunal is directed to realize the enhanced amount, along with the interest from the respondents, within a period of two months and to deliver the same to the appellants within the said period from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. .;