Point of Law: Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act pertains to award of interest where any claim is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 15.3.2013, two appeals have been filed, one by the claimants [FAO (MVA) No. 143 of 2014] seeking enhancement and the other by the insurer [FAO (MVA) No. 49 of 2014] seeking to reduce the awarded compensation amount. Arising out of the same award, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication.

2. The case On 23.3.2010, one Shri Tulsi Ram was travelling in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP 63-0236. Due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle met with an accident causing Tulsi Ram’s death. The driver of the vehicle also lost his life in the accident. Tulsi Ram’s wife-Nirmla Devi filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. She pleaded that Tulsi Ram was working as a skilled mason at the time of his death. He was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day. He was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal held that Tulsi Ram died as a result of accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. His age at the time of death was determined as 55 years. His income was ascertained at Rs. 9,000/- per month. 1/3rd from this income was deducted towards personal and living expenses of Tulsi Ram. The total contribution to the family (dependent wife) was assessed as Rs. 75,600/- per annum. Having regard to the age of deceased Tulsi Ram at the time of death, multiplier of ‘11’ was applied. Total loss of dependency was worked out as Rs. 75600 x 11 = Rs. 8,31,600/-. In addition, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium were also awarded to the claimant. Thus in all, compensation of Rs. 8,56,600/- was held payable to the claimant. The claimant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till the deposit of amount in the learned Tribunal. The vehicle was insured with respondent-insurer (appellant in FAO No. 49/2014). The plea of insurer that Tulsi Ram was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger was turned down by the Tribunal. The driver of vehicle in question was held to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, hence liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the insurer.

3. Submissions

3 (i). Learned Senior Counsel for the claimant has raised following points for enhancing the compensation:-

(a) Funeral charges and loss of estate are to be granted in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others).

(b) Loss of consortium is also required to be paid to the claimant as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, and the compensation amount needs to be reworked on that basis.

(c) Loss of future prospects in the income of the deceased is also required to be taken into consideration as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, supra.

3 (ii). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in FAO No. 49/2014) contended that :-

(a) The income of the deceased Tulsi Ram was incorrectly assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The assessment of the income was on the higher side and needs to be scaled down in the given facts of the case.

(b) There was only one claimant, hence half (½) deduction in the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses was required to be made instead of one-third (1/3rd) made by the learned Tribunal.

(c) Higher interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded by the learned Tribunal, which ought to be reduced to 6% per annum.

4. For the sake of convenience, the above points are being separately discussed hereinafter :-

4(i). Income