The main legal principle established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, considering the deceased's salary, dependency, inflation, and trend of wage increase, and adjusting the multiplier based on the age of the deceased's parents.

A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the award dated 23. 10. 92 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in claim Case No. 110 of 1991 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 40,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition.

( 2 ) THE brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 25. 11. 1990 the deceased Vipul along with his friend Arun Shukla was going to sector 5, Bhilai on a Bullet motor cycle and when they reached near Bungalow no. 32, the non-claimant No. 1 came on scooter from wrong side and struck against the motor cycle of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the present claim petition was filed by the father and mother of the deceased.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal after recording nepessary evidence came to the conclusion that as a matter of fact, the non-claimant No. 1 was responsible for this accident as he came on scooter from the wrong side and struck against the motor cycle, though he also received injuries, but no evidence was led. However, so far as deceased is concerned, it is found that he was driving the motor cycle in proper manner, but the negligence was found on the part of the non-claimant No. 1. Therefore, the Tribunal has held that the non-claimant No. 1 was responsible for the accident.

( 4 ) NOW coming to the next question with regard to compensation, it is alleged that the deceased while working in Maruti steel Company, was drawing a salary of rs. 750 per month. The Tribunal has found that out of Rs. 750, the deceased would have been spending 50 per cent of the said amount on him; therefore, the Tribunal reduced the dependency on the deceased from Rs. 750 to Rs. 375 and the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8 and worked out rs. 36,000. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000 for mental agony and suffering. Thus, the total sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded as compensation.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is not correct because the deceased was though serving and drawing wages of rs. 750 per month in the year 1990 and if he had not died, he would certainly have had a benefit of increase in wages. The learned counsel also submitted that working out wages at the rate of Rs. 750 is not correct and at least, it should have been taken into consideration the further increase from time to time. Learned counsel further submitted that deduction of the amount, which the deceased would have spent on him to the tune of 50 per cent, is also not correct. The standard deduction is 1/3rd and not 50 per cent. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be justified. The accident took place in 1990 and because of inflation, wages would have certainly increased and the deceased would not have stagnated at Rs. 750 only. Taking into consideration the inflation and trend of increase of wages, we take it that wages which the deceased would have earned, would not be in any case less than Rs. 1,000 in time to come and out of that, he would have spent 1/3rd, i. e. , Rs. 300 on himself thereafter the dependency would be rs. 700. In the present case, the father of the deceased was working as a Government servant at the time of accident and his age was 56 years. He completed almost 58 years of age at the time of award of tribunal. Therefore, instead of applying multiplier of 17 looking to the age of father and mother of the deceased, we apply multiplier of 13, which comes to Rs. 700 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 1,09,200. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards loss to estate. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,16,200. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation of rs. 1,16,200 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition. Since the vehicle in question was insured with the non-claimant no. 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. , th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document