The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct method for calculating compensation for a non-earning housewife, considering the income and future prospects, as well as the appropriate choice of multiplier.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Contending that the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Sikkim, at Mangan (for short “Learned Claims Tribunal”), was in error in granting compensation to the tune of Rs.40,05,500/- (Rupees forty lakhs five thousand and five hundred) only, in MACT Case No.13 of 2014, the instant Appeal assails the Award of the Learned Claims Tribunal on the following grounds;

(i) That, there is no proof of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, as the Learned Magisterial Court in G.R. Case No.40 of 2014 discharged the driver of the vehicle in accident finding no prima facie case to make out rash and negligent driving.

(ii) That, the multiplier adopted was based on the age of the deceased when it ought to have been that of the Claimants-Respondents No.1 and 2 (the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased).

(iii) That, the income of the deceased was calculated as 1/3rd of the income of her deceased husband and future prospects @ 50% was added to the loss of dependency which is erroneous.

2. Resisting the grounds put forth by the Appellant, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 argued that the income of the deceased was calculated at 1/3rd of the income of her deceased husband as per Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Once loss of dependency is calculated, as a corollary, there would be loss of future prospects as well and therefore, calculations made thereof does not tantamount to an error on the part of the Learned Claims Tribunal. It was next contended that the finding in a Criminal Court has no bearing before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal where it would suffice to prove that there is a preponderance of probability, while in a Criminal matter the standard of proof is to establish the case “beyond reasonable doubt”. The multiplier adopted is based on the age of the deceased and cannot be said to be incorrect as the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 has held as follows;

“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.”

Hence, the Appeal be dismissed.

3. I have heard the submissions of Learned Counsel at length and given careful consideration to the same. I have also carefully perused the impugned Judgment and the records of the case.

4. Briefly narrated the facts are that, the victim along with her family comprising of her husband, daughter, son, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and few other family members had travelled to Yumthang, North Sikkim, on 27-05-2014 and were returning on 28-05-2014. On their return journey, it was raining despite which the driver of the vehicle was speeding. Although the victim’s husband and brother-in-law implored upon the driver to be cautious, no heed was paid to their advice. Due to his recklessness, he lost control of the vehicle, causing it to go off the road into the river Teesta resulting in the death of the victim and her daughter on the spot, while her husband was washed away with the vehicle.

5. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the Learned Claims Tribunal was correct in awarding the compensation of Rs.40,05,500/- (Rupees forty lakhs five thousand and five hundred) only, to the Claimants duly including future prospects of 50% in view of the fact that the victim was a house wife and was not employed and had no income. It is also to be seen whether there is any error in the choice of multiplier.

6. While addressing the question of compensation, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National