High Court · 2012

The appellant has filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Ve hicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) claiming Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of his mother alleging that on 19.08.2009 at about 9.30 A.M. while his mother was proc eeding towards Bhergaon from her native village and reached the village Harshapa ra suddenly the motor cycle bearing Registration No.AS-27-1471, belonging to the respondent No.3, having lost control dashed against his mother resulting in her death. It was also alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by the owner h imself in a rash and negligent manner. The further contention of the appellant i n the said claim application was that at the time of the accident the deceased w as 48 years old and her monthly income was about Rs.5,000/- and from the said in come she used to contribute to her family consisting of her daughters, namely, S mt. Anjana Boro, Smt. Alaka Boro apart from the claimant/appellant, who were dep endent on the income of the deceased. The said proceeding was registered and num bered as MAC Case No.240/2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang at Mangaldoi. The owner of the vehicle filed the written statement admitting the accid ent but denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving with the further co ntention that he drove the vehicle having a valid driving licence and since ther e is a subsisting contract of insurance with the respondent insurance company, a ny amount of compensation found to be payable by him is to be paid by the insura nce company under the contract of insurance. The respondent insurance company also contested the proceeding by filing written statement denying each and every averment made in the claim petition in cluding having an insurance policy. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues f or determination:- Whether the deceased died out of the alleged accident and due to the ras 1. h and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No.AS-27-1471 (Mo tor Cycle)? 2. ccident? 3. To what relief/reliefs, if any, parties are entitled to? While the appellant/claimant examined 2(two) witnesses and proved 2(two) documents, namely, the accident report (Ext.-1) and the post-mortem examination report (Ext.-2), neither the insurance company nor the owner of the motor vehic Whether the vehicle was covered by Insurance Policy at the time of the a le lead any evidence though they filed the respective written statements. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record has come to the finding that there was a contract of ins urance between the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident as well a s the insurance company, in relation to the vehicle in question. The factum of a ccident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the owner of the mot or vehicle was also found to be proved. The learned Member, however, has taken t he monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, though the appellant/claimant c laimed the deceased monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. The learned Member after deduc ting 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased towards her personal expenses ascertained the annual loss of dependency at Rs.24,000/- which was multiplied b y multiplier 8, taking the age of the deceased as 55 years and arrived at the am ount of compensation payable towards the loss of dependency at Rs.1,92,000/-. A further amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses was added to the said amount, which comes to the total of Rs.2 ,05,000/- as compensation. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3 today, though the names of the learned counsel appearing for the said respondent, are reflected in the cause list. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even i f the age of the victim is accepted as 55 years, the appropriate multiplier woul d be 11, in view of the Apex Court judgment in Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi Tran sport Corporation & anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121. The learned counsel, there fore, submits that the amount of compensation needs to be adequately enhanced. Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 sub mits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- fo r the death of the claimant’s mother arising out of an accident involving the af oresaid motor vehicle. It appears from the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident C laims Tribunal that the multiplier was taken as 8 though the age of the deceased was taken as 55. In paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court has held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column No.4 of the tab le mentioned in paragraph 40 of the said report to avoid inconsistency. The age of the deceased having been taken as 55 the appropriate multiplier, therefore, w ould be 11. The appellant/claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the compensa tion for loss of dependency amounting to Rs.24,000/- × 11 = Rs.2,64,000/-, as th e annual loss of dependency was worked out after deducting 1/3rd from the monthl y income of the deceased, the deceased having left 3(three) dependant, who were dependant on the income of the deceased. The appellant shall also be entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, totali ng Rs.2,77,000/-, which amount would carry interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 16.09.2 009 i.e. the date on which the claim petition was filed till the date of recover y. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to satisfy the said award and de posit the balance of the amount, taking into account the interest accrued on the enhanced amount of compensation from 16.09.2009 till the date of payment, as th ere is no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the respondent i nsurance company and the respondent owner of the offending vehicle. The said amo unt shall be deposited with the Registry of the Tribunal within a month from tod ay. On such deposit the learned Member shall release Rs.30,000/- each in favour of two daughters of the deceased, namely, Smt. Anjana Boro and Smt. Alaka Boro b y separate account payee cheques and the remaining amount shall be released to t he appellant Shri Kasta Boro also by an account payee cheque and on being identi fied by the learned counsel. The award dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang at Mangaldoi, accordingly stands modified. The appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost.