Back
2007 Supreme(UK) 51
2007 (1) U.D., 380
High Court of Uttarakhand
Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. and Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Smt. Sushila and others.............. Appellants
Vs.
Mustfa and others................ ..... Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 158 of 2005
Decided on : 20-02-2007.
.
Sri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants; Sri Pramod Tewari, Advocate on behalf of Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3; Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No. 4- New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sri Manish Dalakoti, Advocate on behalf of Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondent No. 5- National Insurance Company Ltd.
The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory and beneficial legislation, and it should be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168(1), Section 92-A - The court discussed the assessment of compensation, the permissibility of deductions, and the appropriate multiplier in motor accident claim cases. The court emphasized that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and a beneficial legislation, and it should be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants appealed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Atar Singh in a motor accident. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 4,36,000, which the claimants sought to increase.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-computed the entire compensation, taking into consideration the deceased's income, age, and the appropriate multiplier. The court also awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.
Issues: Assessment of compensation, permissibility of deductions, appropriate multiplier, and award of interest on the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and a beneficial legislation, and it should be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court also applied the principles indicated in previous judgments to re-compute the compensation and award interest on the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal for enhancement of the compensation was allowed in part, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 8,31,000. The claimants were further awarded interest on the above amount of compensation at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of the compensation.
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I Addl. District Judge, Roorkee vide Award dated 02-08-2003 passed in MAC.T. No. 54 of 1998.
2. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Atar Singh, claimed compensation of Rs. 39,25,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 01-031998 when his Scooter bearing registration No. UP-10C-1957 was dashed by the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. UP-1 OB-5924 resulting in multiple serious injuries to Atar Singh, who succumbed to those injuries on his way to the hospital. The claimants pleaded that deceased Atar Singh was getting salary of Rs. 9,672.47/- as Cashier in Indian Overseas Bank.
3. The owner and driver of the Tractor; the insurer of the Tractor; and the insurer of the Scooter contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer of the Tractor took the plea that the Tractor was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the Scooterist, himself; was responsible for the accident, whereas the insurer of the Scooter pleaded that the driver of the Tractor, alone, was responsible for the accident.
4. The claimants examined PW1 Sushila, PW2 Palla and PW3 Sannu in support of their claim, whereas the owner of the Tractor examined DW 1 Murtza in rebuttal.
5. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that Atar Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-03-1998 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor; and the insurer of the Tractor was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. After deducting 1 /3rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 80,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 80,000/- with the multiplier of '15', the compensation was assessed at Rs. 12,00,000/-. The Tribunal by taking into account the amount of family pension of Rs. 4,800/-, being received by the family of the deceased every month, reduced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 3,36,000/-. By awarding further sums of Rs. 90,000/- towards Loss of Future Prospects and Rs. 10,000/- towards Loss of Consortium; Funeral Expenses; and Loss of Estate, a total sum of Rs. 4,36,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Atar Singh in the motor accident on 01-031998. The Tribunal, further, directed the insurer of the Tractor to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the event of its failure to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of the Award.
7. Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 4,36,000/- only and in not awarding any interest on the amount of compensation and in directing only a conditional payment of interest in the event of the insurer's failure to pay the compensation to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of the Award.
8. Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the insurer of the Tractor, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the Tractor solely responsible for the accident, whereas the deceased, himself, also contributed to the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs. 4,36,000/- to the claimants and no enhancement of the compensation is warranted in this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the owner and driver of the Tractor and the insurer of the Scooter supported the Award.
10. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Atar Singh died on account of the injuries su
