1987 Supreme(Raj) 941
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
I.S.Israni, J.
Bhanwar Lal and others - Appellant
Versus
Munshi Ram and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 59 and 60 of 1985.
Decided On : 9-12-1987
The remarriage of the widow of a deceased person should not affect the compensation payable to the other members of the family of the deceased person.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTIONS 110-D, 166 - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW - EFFECT ON COMPENSATION - UNIFORM MULTIPLIER - LUMP SUM DEDUCTION - INTEREST - LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
Fact of the Case:
Two appeals were filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in cases arising from the death of a 25-year-old man in an accident. The appellants, the parents of the deceased, challenged the amount of compensation awarded, the effect of the remarriage of the widow on the compensation, and other issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in deducting the amount of dependency on account of the remarriage of the widow of the deceased person. It also held that there should be uniformity in applying the multiplier to various claimants and that no amount should be deducted from the compensation amount on account of lump sum payment. The court further held that the appellants were entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and that compensation should be awarded to the parents of the deceased on account of loss of love and affection.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting the amount of dependency on account of the remarriage of the widow of the deceased person? 2. Whether there should be uniformity in applying the multiplier to various claimants? 3. Whether any amount should be deducted from the compensation amount on account of lump sum payment? 4. Whether the appellants were entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition? 5. Whether compensation should be awarded to the parents of the deceased on account of loss of love and affection?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the remarriage of the widow of the deceased person should not affect the compensation payable to the other members of the family of the deceased person. It reasoned that the Act is a piece of social legislation enacted to benefit the family members of the victim and that deducting the amount of dependency on account of remarriage would act as an impediment to the encouragement of widow remarriage. 2. The court held that there should be uniformity in applying the multiplier to various claimants. It reasoned that this approach is consistent with the court's previous decisions and that it ensures that all claimants receive fair and just compensation. 3. The court held that no amount should be deducted from the compensation amount on account of lump sum payment. It reasoned that the falling value of the rupee and the rising rate of inflation make it inappropriate to deduct any amount on this account. 4. The court held that the appellants were entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It relied on a Supreme Court decision which awarded interest at the same rate. 5. The court held that compensation should be awarded to the parents of the deceased on account of loss of love and affection. It reasoned that the parents lost their young earning son and that this court has been awarding compensation on this count in similar cases.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appeals bearing Nos. 59 of 1985 and 60 of 1985, both arise out of the same award and are disposed of by one judgment.
2. Both these appeals have been filed under section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated November 9, 1984, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. in case Nos. 42 of 1981 and 41 of 1981.
3. It will suffice to state for the purpose of these appeals that appellants filed a claim petition on account of death Of their son Ganesh Ram, aged 25 years, who died on account of accident, held on October 19,1980. Geeta w/o deceased Ganesh Ram did not file any appeal on account of her remarriage after the death of Ganesh Ram. Both these appeals have been filed on question of enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and effect of remarriage of widow on the compensation, no other point is involved in the appeals.
4. Taking appeal No. 59 of 1985. income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 500/- p.m. As earlier stated the age of the deceased was 25 years. Since the wife of the deceased remarried after death of her husband, the Tribunal deducted in all Rs. 340/- on account of personal expenses of the deceased and remarriage of his wife. Therefore, Rs. 80/- each, totalling to Rs. 160/- in all was taken to be the amount of dependency, for both the claimants, i.e., father and mother. The age of appellant Bhanwari Lal, father of the deceased, is 50 years and Mohini Devi, mother of deceased, is 45 years. Keeping in view the age of the parents, multiplier of twenty years was applied for the appellant Mohini Devi, the mother of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the case of Lalita v. Devi Sahai, 1987 ACJ 241 (Rajasthan) , in which it was held that same multiplier should be applied for all the claimants. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the wife of the deceased had also filed claim along with his parents but during the pendency of the appeal, she remarried and on this account the Tribunal has awarded low amount in the award. His contention is that even though the wife has remarried the amount of dependency should, he kept same and the whole amount of dependency should be awarded to the parents who have lost their earning son and bread earner in the family. He has placed reliance on the case of Kasturi Lal v. Prabhakar, 1970 ACJ 1 (MP) . This was a case in which the deceased had father and mother living but father alone filed claim on account of death of his son. The question for determination was whether only half the compensation was admissible to the claimant as the mother of the deceased had not joined in the claim petition for award of any compensation. It was held that the claim applications are filed in a representative capacity by virtue of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and, therefore, full amount may be awarded to the claimant and no deductions should be made on account of absence of mother of the deceased in the claim petition. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that in this case the widow of the deceased had joined the claim petition but married during the pendency of the same and did not appear before the court. However, it is submitted that the total amount of dependency should have been given to the appellants and no amount could be deducted on account of remarriage of the wife of the deceased. The next contention of the learned counsel is that usually ⅓rd amount is deducted on account of personal expenses or the deceased person and ⅔rd is taken to be the amount of dependency for the family members. In this case also, therefore, it is submitted that out of the income of Rs. 500/- ⅓rd amount, i.e., Rs. 170/- only should have been deducted and the amount of dependency Should have been fixed at Rs. 330/-. In this way the contention of the learned counsel is that the whole amount of Rs. 330/-should be available for the appellants to be awarded as compensation. The next contention of
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
