1981 Supreme(Raj) 552
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manorma And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1981.
Decided On : 11-12-1981
The multiplier method is the appropriate method for assessing compensation under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, considering various imponderables and uncertainties in a more comprehensive manner compared to other methods.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - SECTION 110-D - APPEAL - AWARD - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES - MULTIPLIERS - MENTAL SHOCK - CLAIM - MAINTAINABILITY - CROSS OBJECTIONS - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant Corporation filed an appeal against the award of Rs. 6,17,600/- granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, to the respondents for the death of their husband/father in a motor accident. The respondents filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs. 17,05,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
1. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant Corporation's bus driver. 2. The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for mental shock and agony, as it is not permissible under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The multiplier method is the appropriate method for assessing compensation under Section 110B of the Act. 4. The annual dependency of the claimants was Rs. 16,000/- (annual income of Rs. 28,000/- minus expenses of Rs. 12,000/- incurred by the deceased on himself). 5. A multiplier of 20 is appropriate in the present case, considering the deceased's age, life expectancy, and prospects of increased earnings. 6. The compensation for pecuniary loss is assessed at Rs. 3,20,000/- (annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- multiplied by 20). 7. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant Corporation's bus driver? 2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for mental shock and agony? 3. What is the appropriate method for assessing compensation under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act? 4. What is the annual dependency of the claimants? 5. What is the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case? 6. What is the quantum of compensation for pecuniary loss?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant Corporation's bus driver based on the evidence of witnesses and the inspection report. 2. The court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for mental shock and agony, as it is not permissible under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows compensation only for pecuniary loss and loss sustained by the estate of the deceased. 3. The court held that the multiplier method is the appropriate method for assessing compensation under Section 110B of the Act, as it takes into account various imponderables and uncertainties in a more comprehensive manner compared to other methods. 4. The court determined the annual dependency of the claimants by deducting the deceased's personal expenses (Rs. 12,000/-) from his annual income (Rs. 28,000/-), resulting in an annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/-. 5. The court held that a multiplier of 20 is appropriate in the present case, considering the deceased's age (32 years), life expectancy (65 years), and prospects of increased earnings due to the nature of his business. 6. The court assessed the compensation for pecuniary loss at Rs. 3,20,000/- by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- by the multiplier of 20.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation payable to the claimants was reduced from Rs. 6,17,600/- to Rs. 3,20,000/-. The cross-objections filed by the claimants were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated October 9, 1980, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal'), in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 64 of 1979, filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as to ''the claimants") against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, and Shri Hari Rain Driver Respondent No. 3 under Section 110-A of the Act. In the said claim petition the claimants had claimed for Rs. 17,05,000/- as compensation. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,17,600/- as compensation to the claimants.
2. The claim for compensation relates to a motor accidents which took place on the Banswara Partapur road, near village Talwara on January 29, 1979 at about 8.30 P.M. In the said accident, a jeep bearing No. RJY 3891 and a Bus bearing No. RRM 3885 owned by the appellant Corporation and driven by Hari Ram respondent No. 3 were involved. One Prakash Chandra the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 who was travelling in the aforesaid jeep sustained injuries during the said accident and as a result of the injuries sustained by him he died on the spot. There after, the claim petition, giving rise to the present appeal, was filed by the claimants on May 13, 1979.
3. In the claim petition, the claimants submitted that on the date of accident, i.e. on January 29, 1979, the deceased Prakash Chandra, was going from Banswara to Partapur, in jeep No. RJY 3891 which was being driven by Abdul Rahman the owner of the said Jeep. At about 8.30 P.M. when the jeep was about 11/2 kilometers from village Talwara, and was going at a normal speed. Bus No. RRM 3885 came from the opposite direction at a fast speed and as the bus was not under the control of the driver, the driver of the jeep stopped the jeep on one side of the road but in view of the fact that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, the bus hit the jeep, as a result of which Prakash Chandra sustained injuries on his person and died instantly and that even after the accident the driver of the bus did not stop the bus, Dilip Kumar who was travelling in the jeep at that time gave information about the accident to the Sarpanch of village Talwara, who informed the police there upon, Shri Suresh Chandra, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, arrived at the scene of the accident on the same night, he also recorded a report at the police station on January 30, 1979 at 8.15 A.M. Nathu Jogi who was also travelling in the jeep, sustained injuries as a result of accident, the ring of the head light of the bus and the foot board of the bus had fallen down near the scene of the accident. According to the aforesaid claim petition deceased Prakash Chahdra was partner in the firm M/s. Vijay Lal Harish Chandra at the time of the accident, his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/- and that the deceased was spending about l/3rd of his income on himself and remaining ⅔rd income was being spent by him on the claimants. According to the claim petition the deceased was 31 years old at the time of the accident and the normal expectation of his life was 75 years. The claimants, therefore, claimed Rs. 15,05,000/- as a compensation on account of loss of earning as a result of the death of Prakash Chandra and Rs. 2,00,000/ as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the claimants.
4. The aforesaid claim petition was contested by the appellant Corporation and respondent No. 3, who filed separate but identical written statements, wherein they denied that the accident had been caused, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus, but pleaded that the accident had been caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep and persons travelling in the said jeep.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed four iss
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
