Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.525 of 2016
(31.7.2023)
Mamta Devi & Ors. ... Appellants
vs.
Manoj Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988–Section 166–Compensation for death caused by motor vehicle–the deceased was a Khalasi and aged about 30 years, has a earning of Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of accident, which has been reduced to Rs. 4,000 per month by the Tribunal without any basis–claim of the appellants with regard to monthly salary including Rs. 75/- for food allowances per day coming to Rs. 6000 + (75 × 30) = 6000 + 2250 = 8250/- should have been accepted by the tribunal regarding adding the future prospect, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in the present case 40% of the salary amount of the deceased would be entitled to be added–regarding deduction of living expenses, considering the number of dependents, deduction of 1/4th of the income on account of personal expenses found appropriate in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 6 SCC 221–further, it is well settled by the judicial pronouncements that the widow of the deceased would be entitled for a spousal consortium and the minor children would get parental consortium–in case of the parents of dependant on the deceased, they would be entitled for filial consortium–in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2022 (10) SCC 512, the widow held entitled for Rs. 40,000/- as spousal Consortium whereas children would be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each on account of parental consortium and mother of the deceased for Rs. 40,000/- as filial consortium however, on the point of future prospect, the deceased being 40 years, an additional 40% of the established income of the deceased should be awarded future prospect and funeral expenses and Estate loss @ Rs. 15,000/- also allowed–Appeal allowed–amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal modified from Rs. 5,85,500/- to Rs. 8,89,700/- with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization–however, Insurance Company given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the Vehicle. (Paras 16 to 25)
(2017) 16 SCC 689, (2009) 6 SCC 121, (2022) 1 SCC 198, (2018) 18 SCC 130, Case No. MAC App. 177/2017 D/- 11.02.2021 (Guwahati), 2022 SCC Online SC 1723, (2013) 9 SCC 54, (2022) 10 SCC 512–Referred.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) for enhancing of the525 compensation allowed to the claimants-appellants by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 281 of 2012. By judgment dated 14.11.2014 and award dated 27.01.2016, the learned Tribunal directed the Reliance General Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,85,500/- (Five Lacs eighty five thousand and five hundred only) with annual interest @6% from the date of institution of this case. Details of calculation made by the learned tribunal as under: –
| (i) | Monthly income of deceased | Rs. 4,000/- |
| (ii) | Annual income of deceased | Rs. 4,000X12=48,000/- |
| (iii) | 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased | Rs. 16,000/- |
| (iv) | Rest early income of deceased | Rs. 32,000/- |
| Age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident so multiplier as to age group becomes 18. | ||
| (v) | Total compensation | Rs. 32,000X18=5,76,000/- |
| (vi) | Loss of estate | Rs. 2,500/- |
| (vii) | Funeral expenses | Rs. 2,000/- |
| (viii) | Loss of consortium | Rs. 5,000/- |
|
| Total | Rs. 5,85,500/- |
3. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal pray for the following relief(s): –
“the learned tribunal ought to have awarded following compensation which is just compensation under Section 168 of the Act: –
Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 6,000 + food allowances.
Annual income of the deceased 6,000 + (75X30) X 12 = 99,000/-
Annual income and future prospects of the deceased as the deceased about 30 years old, 50% of the actual income should be added. 99,000 + (99,000 X 50%) = Rs. 148,500/-
Out of total income personal expenses of 1/4th should be deducted (148,500-1/4th) = Rs. 1,11,375/-
The appropriate multiplier would be 17. The compensation would be 11,375X17 = Rs. 18,93,375.00
Loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love to the children, loss of love to the parents and funeral expenses should be added as per decision of Apex Court in the recent as well as in the case of “Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh” & Smt. Neeta case.
(1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000) =
Rs. 3,25,000.00/- (wrongly calculated)
Total Rs. 22,18,375.00/-”
4. Before considering the claim of the appellants, it is important to mention that the insurance company has not challenged this impugned judgment and award.
5. The case of the appellants, in short, is that Tribhuwan Singh @ Tribhuwan Kumar (deceased) was the Assistant Driver-cum-Khalasi of truck bearing Registration no. JH-05Q-9986. On 17.12.2007, at about 03:00 am, the driver of the said truck, namely, Pankaj Kumar Yadav asked the khalasi to remove obstacle from behind the rear wheel of the truck, the driver Pankaj Kumar Yadav started the truck and as such, the truck ran over him. As a result, the Assistant Driver-cum- Khalasi, namely, Tribhuwan Singh became badly injured and sustained multiple injuries and on way to the hospital, he succumbed to injury. On the basis of fardbeyan of Pankaj Kumar Yadav, a case was registered in Mango P.S. Case No. 428 of 2007 dated 17.12.2007 under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver, namely, Pankaj Kumar Yadav.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was getting Rs. 6,000/- (six thousand only) per month with food allowance (khuraki) of Rs. 75/- only per day. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased is 30 years. The offending truck be
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 220-A(3) of the Rules of 1998 for determining future prospects and the use of the multiplier as per the Second Schedule to ....
The assessment of compensation must ensure fairness and reasonableness while considering income, future prospects, and applying the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.
The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the retrospective applicability of Supreme Court decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
