The multiplier for motor accident compensation must be based on the deceased's age, not the dependent's. Furthermore, as the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation, courts may award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, “the Tribunal”) in O.P. No.309 of 2011, dated 05.05.2014, on account of the death of Bhukya Kishan in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.01.2011 at about 5:00 PM, the deceased, along with his friend, was returning on a motor cycle after visiting Janpahad Darga. When they reached the outskirts of Nagireddygudem, a lorry bearing No. AP-24-T-5005, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A criminal case in Crime No.10 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant/claimant, being the mother and dependent of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,46,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at a very low figure despite evidence showing that the deceased was a graduate. It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier by taking into account the age of the claimant instead of the age of the deceased. It is also submitted that no addition was made towards future prospects and that the amounts awarded under conventional heads, as well as the rate of interest, are wholly inadequate. Hence, it is prayed that the compensation and the rate of interest be suitably enhanced.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3–Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

5. Upon a careful examination of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner of the accident and the liability of the respondents does not call for interference, as the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence.

6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier ‘13’ by taking into account the age of the claimant, thereby arriving at Rs.2,34,000/- towards loss of dependency. The said approach is contrary to the settled principles of law.

7. It is well settled that the multiplier has to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependents. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident; therefore, the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the contribution to the family would be Rs.1,500/- per month (Rs.3,000/- less 50%). The annual contribution would be Rs.18,000/- (Rs.1,500 × 12). Applying the multiplier ‘18’, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,24,000/-. Further, in view of the settled law, the appellant/claimant is entitled to addition towards future prospects. Since the deceased was below 40 years of age, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is warranted. Accordingly, 25% of Rs.3,24,000/-, i.e., Rs.81,000/-, is added. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rs.3,24,000/- + Rs.81,000/-). In addition to that, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.