Accident – Personal Expenses – When notional income is being assessed, no deduction for self expenses is to be made

Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - The award dated 14.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has been assailed by the legal heirs of Nardeh seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’)

2. The present appeal has been filed by the husband and daughter of the deceased. The driver of Jeep bearing registration No.HR-45-3917 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle’), owner and insurer i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 in the appeal respectively. The other legal heirs have been arrayed as proforma respondent’s No. 4 to 9.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 19.11.2003, Nardeh alongwith Sunder Singh was travelling in a bus and was coming to Chandigarh. On the way the bus stopped Nardeh got down to answer the call of nature and while she was trying to cross the road, she was hit by a rashly and negligently driven offending vehicle. As a result of the impact, she sustained grievous injures and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. FIR was registered.

4. The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The owner, driver and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, however, liberty was given to the insurer to proceed against the owner and driver, if so advised. The Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.14,500/- under conventional heads. A total sum of Rs. 1,14,500/- was awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. In the claim petition filed it was pleaded that the deceased was doing dairy farming and was earning Rs.13,000/- per month. Her age was claimed to be 50 years at the time of accident. But the claimants failed to substantiate the occupation and earning of the deceased. Even there was dispute with regard to age of the deceased at the time of accident as the age of the husband was mentioned as 63 years in the FIR whereas it was claimed 55 years before the Tribunal. It has come on record that the age of the eldest son of the deceased was 37 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 61 years at the time of accident.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and the relevant documents produced by them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum amount of compensation instead of applying multiplier method. She argues that the Tribunal erred in considering the age of the deceased as 61 years at the time of accident. She further argues that the deceased should have been considered as a house-maker in absence of any evidence with regard to her occupation. The grievance raised is that the amount awarded under the conventional heads are on lower side.

8. Learned counsel for the insurer defended the award and argued that the claimants failed to substantiate the occupation and earning of the deceased. However, in view of the settled position of law, he could not raise any serious issue with regard to application of multiplier method for awarding compensation. The Tribunal erred in awarding a lump-sum amount instead of applying multiplier method. The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that compensation should be awarded by applying multiplier method as it is consistent and logical.

9. There is nothing on record to prove that the deceased was engaged in dairy farming and was earning from it. Still, her role as a house maker could not be disputed. The contribution of a house-maker towards the family cannot be measured in monetary terms.

10. The Supreme Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trive