Sunderabai Kacharu Rathod v. Sou.Jankibai Pandurang Deokar

1 Appeal is presented by claimants raising challenge to the judgment and award dated 12.12.1995, passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.200 of 1991, on the ground of inadequacy in awarding compensation. 2 Deceased Kacharu was working as labourer and was loading sugarcane in a truck bearing No.MWA-7419 in the field on 12.05.1991 at about 10 a.m. It is stated that at the relevant time, deceased was at the rear side of truck and original opponent no.2, who was driver of said truck, without prior caution, had driven the truck in reverse gear, as a result of which, deceased received dash and got crushed under the wheels of truck and met with death. According to claimants, opponent no.2 had driven the truck, belonging to opponent no.1, in a rash and negligent manner causing death of deceased. Deceased was a young man of 24 years and was of sound health. It is contended that he could have survived up to the age of 70 years. He was the only bread earner in the family. As such, claim petition is 3 presented seeking compensation from the owner and driver of the truck as well as insurer of the vehicle. It is contended that deceased was getting income of Rs.1400/- per month as labourer and considering all the relevant circumstances, compensation claimed by claimants, who are his wife, two children and parents, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. 3 The claim was opposed by opponents no.1 & 2 , driver and owner of the truck by presenting their written statement. The quantum of income of deceased is disputed by contesting opponents. Opponents No.1 and 2 also denied their liability to pay compensation. 4 Opponent No.3 – Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing written statement at Exhibit-21. The vehicle having been insured with insurance company is admitted by concerned opponent. However, it is denied that accident had occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company has also denied that deceased was 25 years of age and his earning was Rs.1400/- per month. The Insurance Company, thus, denied its liability and prayed that petition be dismissed. 5 Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after

receiving evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that claimants have established their case and taking into account monthly income of deceased to be Rs.750/- and deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of deceased, the Tribunal arrived as regards dependency of claimants at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The Tribunal, on application of multiplier of 15, has determined amount of compensation payable to claimants to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. Further sum amounting to Rs.10,000/- was 4 awarded in view of ruling of the High Court in the case of Sunanda Vs. Baburao, reported in 1986 ACJ 734. It is also held by the Tribunal that claimants no.2 and 3 would be entitled to receive Rs.2000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal, as such, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,04,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. From the date of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount.

It is further directed by the Tribunal that amount of Rs.25,000/- paid towards no fault liability be deducted from total compensation receivable by claimants. 6 Claimants have approached this Court questioning determination of compensation by the Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy. 7 I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties, perused judgment and award passed by Tribunal as well as evidence placed on record by the parties. 8 Shri Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for claimants, contends that in the absence of there being any evidence in respect of earnings of deceased, even considering deceased was working as a labourer, the Tribunal ought to have considered his income at least to be Rs.100/- per day and ought to have determined compensation accordingly. A grievance is also made in respect of application of multiplier as well as deduction proposed by Tribunal on account of personal expenses of deceased.

9 Shri Bafna, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3- Insurance Company, has vehemently opposed arguments advanced by appellants and has supported the judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 5 According to learned Counsel appearing for Insurance Company, that so far as daily income of deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has taken a liberal view of the matter and same needs no interference. He further contends that application of multiplier of 15 is on the basis of principles laid down by the Apex Court and same cannot be questioned. It is also contended that making deduction to the extent of 1/3rd is the standard practice and same is required to be followed in this matter also. 10 Shri Bedre, learned Counsel for appellants, seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Khimlibai and others, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 648, and contends that the Tribunal, in the absence of there being any evidence led by claimants in respect of earnings of deceased, ought to have calculated income of deceased at the rate of Rs.100/- per day.

In the reported matter, deceased was working as a carpenter and the Apex Court, on the basis of hypothecation, presuming that deceased was securing job for six months in a year and for rest of the period was serving as a labourer in his field, determined daily income at the rate of Rs.100/-. Learned Counsel Shri Bedre contends that same analogy applies to the instant case. 11 I am afraid, the argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the instant matter, deceased was admittedly working as labourer. The wages of labourer during relevant period, even as per guidelines prescribed by State Government under Minimum Wages Act, were not more than Rs.25/- per day. Learned Counsel Shri Bafna contends that wages prescribed under Minimum Wages Act, during relevant period, were only Rs.21/- per day. In this view of the matter, computation arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of daily earning of deceased at the rate of Rs.25/- appears 6 to be proper and needs no interference.

12 That, so far as application of proper multiplier is concerned, Shri Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for appellants, contends that application of appropriate multiplier, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be 17 and the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 15. 13 Learned Counsel Shri Bafna contends that application of multiplier shall be on the basis of all relevant circumstances and as per guidelines prescribed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176. Learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M/s Swaranlata Das and others, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1259, wherein age of deceased in the reported matter was 26 years and the Court, while dealing with the matter, has deemed it fit to apply multiplier of 15. Similarly, in the matter of Smt.

Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1274, wherein deceased met with death at the age of 27 years, the Apex Court considered it appropriate to apply multiplier of 15. 14 The controversy in respect of fixing multiplier based on guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments has been set at rest by the Apex Court while dealing with the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Apex Court has taken into account directions issued in respect of prescribing multiplier, given in the judgments, namely Susamma Thomas