IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court committed an error in choosing suitable multiplier as per Schedule Second of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Tribunal erred in granting interest on compensation only @ 6% p.a.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 149(2) and 170-Joint Appeals by insurer and insured against quantum of compensation-Pressed only by insured-High Court reduced compensation-Whether appeals were maintainable? (Yes)-Proper course to delete name of insurer-Case law discussed.
       Held : In the present case, appeal was whole hog pressed on behalf of the insured challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the decision of this Court in the case of Chinnama George and others v. N.K. Raju and another (2000) 4 SCC 130 can be of no avail to the appellant and we do not find any merit in the submission that joint appeal by the insurer as well as the insured was not maintainable. In such an eventuality, the course which a Court should adopt is as noticed in the case of Narendra Kumar and another v. Yarenissa and others (1998)9 SCC 202 to delete name of the insurer from the cause title and proceed with appeal of the insured and decide the same on merit. (Para 4)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Second Schedule-Notional income of a non-earning person-Tribunal assessed income of deceased coolies to be Rs. 3000?- p.m.-High Court reduced it to Rs. 1500/- in appeal-Whether can be disturbed in appeal under Article 136 of Constitution? (No).
       Held : It appears that after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, as the High Court did not find evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants reliable and satisfactory, it fixed their income at Rs. 1500/- per month and this being a question of fact, it is not possible to interfere with the same especially when it could not be pointed out that there was any error therein. (Para 5)
       (iii) Motors Vehicles Act. 1988-Second schedule_Question of multipilerplier-Age of mothers of victims being 45 and 40-High Court applied multiplies of 13 and 14 instead of 15 and 16 prescribed-Whether correct? (No).
       Held : According to the Second Schedule, if the age is above 40 years but not exceeding 45 years, the multiplier applicable is 15 and if the age is above 35 years but not exceeding 40 years, the multiplier would be 16 but the High Court has taken the multiplier as 13 and 14 instead of 15 and 16 respectively. In the case of compensation to the parents of Vazeer, the multiplier 15 should have been adopted instead of 13 and the compensation should not have been reduced from Rs. 3,13,000/- to Rs. 1,71,000/- but the same should have been reduced to Rs. 1,95,000/- In the case of compensation to the parents of Rafeeq, the correct multiplier should have been 16 and not 14 and the High Court was not justified in reducing the compensation from Rs. 3,49,000/- to Rs. 1,83,000/- which should have been reduced to Rs. 2,07,000/-. Thus, we hold that the parents of Vazeer are entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,95,000/- and that of Rafeeq to the tune of Rs. 2,07,000/-. (Para 6)
       (iv) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Interest on compensation-Tribunal granted @ 6% p.a.-Nationalised Bank giving 9% p.a.-Whether interest be raised from 6% p.a. to 9% p.a.? (Yes)-Case referred-Whether direction to invest mother s portion in a Nationalised Bank proper? (No).
       Held : The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim." Therefore, it was directed in that case that the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In our view, the submission is well founded and must be accepted. Accordingly, we hold that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till realisation. (Para 7)
       Held also : In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part and the judgments of the High Court are modified to the extent as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. (Paras 8 & 9)

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgments rendered by Karnataka High Court in two separate appeals jointly preferred by the insurer as well as the insured, the same have been partly allowed and compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been reduced viz, in one case from Rs. 3,13,000/- to Rs.1,71,000/- and in another from Rs.3,49,000/- to Rs, 1,83,000/-. While disposing of the appeals, the High Court directed that out of the compensation awarded, 25% shall be payable to fathers of the respective victims and 75% to their mothers together with proportionate interest. It was further directed that out of the amount of compensation payable to the mothers of the victims, Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years with liberty to draw the interest.

3. The short facts are that one Irfan Ahammed-respondent No. 1 owned a lorry bearing No. CNG- 6409 and Vazeer Ahamed and Rafeeq Ahamed, sons of the appellants of these appeals were working as a coolie therein. On 1st June, 1996, when respondent No. 1 was driving the said vehicle in which the aforesaid two persons were also travelling as coolie, the same met with an accident at 10.00 a.m. as a result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 resulting into the deaths of Vazeer and Rafeeq, for which two claims petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by parents of each of the victims for awarding compensation in their favour on account of death of their sons under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Age of victim Rafeeq was 21 years and his father s age was 45 years whereas that of his mother was 40 years. The age of another victim Vazeer was 22 years and that of his father and mother was 53 years and 45 years respectively at the time of the accident. The claimants in both the petitions claimed the income of their respective sons to be Rs.4500/- per month. The claim was contested by the owner as well as the insurance company on grounds, inter alia, that the accident had not taken place on account of any rash or negligent act on the part of the owner in driving the vehicle. Both the cases were heard together. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined. Father of Rafeeq was examined as PW 1 and that of Vazeer as PW 2 and in their evidence, they stated that the monthly income of their sons was Rs. 3,000/-. The owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1 who, in his deposition, denied payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of the victims. The Tribunal by a common judgment having found the income of each of the victims to be Rs. 3,000/- per month, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,49,000/- in favour of the parents of Rafeeq and Rs. 3,13,000/- in favour of those of Vazeer together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Two different appeals were preferred before the High Court against awards of the Tribunal and each of the appeals was jointly filed by insurer as well as the insured. The High Court was of the view that the evidence in relation to income of the two victims was neither reliable nor satisfactory but found their income to be Rs.18,000/- per annum which was little more than Rs. 1500/- per month that was prescribed as notional income as a non-earning person under the Second Schedule to the Act. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution towards family was assessed at Rs. 12,000/- per annum. According to the High Court in selecting

multiplier, the age of younger out of the two parents was required to be taken into consideration. As the age of the mother of Rafeeq was found to be 40 years, the High Court held that the multiplier to be applicable was 14 and compensation was reduced to Rs. 1,83,000/- from Rs. 3,49,000/-. So far Vazeer is concerned, as the age of his mother was found to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 668

IMPORTANT POINTThe High Court committed an error in choosing suitable multiplier as per Schedule Second of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Tribunal erred in granting interest on compensation only @ 6% p.a.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court committed an error in choosing suitable multiplier as per Schedule Second of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Tribunal erred in granting interest on compensation only @ 6% p.a.