Smt. Sunita Thapliyal & Ors. v. M/s Sadaram and Sons

Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings given by the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has held that the monthly earning saved for the family could be safely taken to be Rs. 1000.00. This finding is not correct. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.1 Kamlesh Prasad, father of the deceased, he was receiving Rs. 2500/- per month. His age was 33 years. This fact has not been disputed and this finding has not been challenged before us. The deceased was the only earning member of the family and hardly he could spent 1,000/- towards his own expenditure including the expenditure of petrol and maintenance of motor cycle etc. Therefore out of Rs. 2500/- per month, Rs.1500/- per month the deceased could spend on his family. The Tribunal has wrongly taken it to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. Therefore, we hold as has been stated in the statement of his father.

The Tribunal has also not applied the multiplier according to the Schedule appended to Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. As the age of the deceased was 33 years, therefore the multiplier could have been applied of '17'. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 1500.00X12X17=Rs. 3,06,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it was not an application under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was an application under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the just compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Since the Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased according to the age Schedule appended to Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the date of judgment to arrive for just conclusion for the compensation to be paid to the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have been applied the multiplier as per Schedule.

Therefore, we calculate the loss of dependency as aforesaid. In view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in A.O.No.252 of 2001, Smt. Rama Bansal and others versus Smt. Kusum Devi and others, decided on 17th Aug., 2004, wherein it has been held that for coming to a compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if no other evidence is led, then the aid of Schedule appended to Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be taken. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is rejected accordingly. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the rate of interest fixed by the learned tribunal is excessive. It may be reduced to 6%. We are of the opinion, that in the interest of justice the rate of interest is reduced from 15% to 8%. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.08.1995 is modified accordingly. The claimants/appellants shall be paid Rs. 3,06,000/-(Rupees three lakh six thousand) as compensation by the Opp. party/respondent No.3-New India Insurance Company alongwith interest at the rate of 8% (eight per cent) per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. (B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C.Verma, J.) P.Singh