Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajeev Gupta, C.J. and Mr. Rangnath Chandrakar, J.
Smt. Bratti Karmakar and another
Vs.
Deepankar Kundu and another
Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1395/2009
Decided On: 07.07.2011
The court re-computed the compensation based on the deceased's potential income and age, citing relevant legal precedent.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A
Fact of the Case:
The claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Nitai Karmakar in a motor accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,62,000 as compensation, which the claimants contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-computed the compensation, considering the deceased's potential income and age, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,39,000 with an additional quantified amount of interest of Rs. 8,000.
Issues: Assessment of deceased's income, adequacy of compensation, and quantification of interest on enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the deceased's potential income and age to re-compute the compensation, citing the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarin Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another.
Final Decision: The appeal for enhancement of compensation was allowed in part, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,39,000 with further quantified interest of Rs. 8,000.
Act Referred
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur District Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30-3-2009, passed in Claim Case No. 38/2008.
2. As against the compensation of Rs. 7,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor son of deceased Nitai Karmakar, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16-5-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- as compensation along with interest ' 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax bearing Registration No. C.G. 04/H-3093 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting l/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nitai Karmakar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- ' 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
4. Shri. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- only.
5. Shri. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No: 2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nitai Karmakar used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month as Carpenter, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased.
7. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.
8. Considering that deceased Nitai Karmakar was aged about 43 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs. 70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum.
9. By deducting the usual l/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum.
10. Considering that deceased Nitai Karmakar was 43 years of age, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarin Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009(4) M.P.H.T. 99 (SC), wherein multiplier of 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years.
11. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- with
