Point of Law : Purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. Since long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Bank Account of claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment & order dated 30.05.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, District Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.158 of 2006 (Smt. Raj Biri and Others Vs. Regional Manager, Regional Office, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,600/-as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Mahesh in a road accident with the averments that on 19.12.2005, Mahesh-deceased along with his friends was going to his house from Delhi by tractor, when he reached at village Luhari, a bus bearing no. U.P. 14 T 9563 was coming, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid bus being driven in such a manner dashed the deceased’s tractor. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the way to hospital.

3. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/-per month while the deceased was a farmer and also doing animal husbandry. Deceased was in a dairy business and land record shows that he had property, which was there and was earning Rs.48,000/-per month but learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which, in our opinion is bad on facts. Learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has granted multiplier of 13 and but has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently objected the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants on the issue of enhancement of compensation. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation as per law admissible to the claimants which does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that it is an internal dispute between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle and the appellants being legal representative of the third party, they cannot be punished for non production of the driving licence by the U.P.S.R.T.C. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that deceased was survived by his wife, three minor children and mother, who were dependent on him, hence 1/4th should be deducted. It is also submitted that appellants-claimants are also entitled to get non pecuniary damages and the same may be granted. It is submitted that recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the controversy and settled the law regarding the death of a child in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme Court) be made applicable. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated t