We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month, while the owner of the truck has admitted payment of monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 40/- per day for diet to the deceased. In an appeal for enhancement of compensation in motor accident claim cases, we are required to consider the age and income of the deceased and if the deceased is a bachelor than the age of his parents will have to be ascertained. In the instant case the learned Tribunal without mentioning the age of the appellants has applied multiplier of '16', which according to 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is used for victims within the age group of above 35 years and below 40 years. Neither in the memo of appeal nor in the entire impugned award the age of the appellants has not been mentioned and straight away multiplier of '16' has been applied for quantifying the amount of compensation. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that since they have not challenged the multiplier used and deductions made by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation, so it cannot be looked into by this Court. While hearing an appeal for enhancement of the compensation even for admission, all the components required for quantifying the just and fair compensation payable to the claimants have to be evaluated by the appellate Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice only to consider the income of the deceased in this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Ultimately just and reasonable amount of compensation can be ascertained only when the income of the deceased and age of his parents are correctly taken and appropriate multiplier is chosen. In the instant case the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record has recorded the following findings under issue no. 6:
"eSaus nksuks i{kksa ds rdksZ ds lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij izLrqr lk{; rFkk ;kph }kjk fo'okflr O;oLFkkvksa dk voyksdu fd;k rks ik;k fd ;kph ek;k nsoh dh lk{; fo'okl fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksa fd ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd e`rd rk gwW fd e`rd dh okLrfod vk; fl) ugha gksrh gSA e`rd Vªd ij gSYij ds :i esa dk;Z djrk FkkA blfy, eSa le>rk gwW fd okgu Lokeh vf/kd ls vf/kd mls [email protected]:0 izfrekg vnk djrk gksxkA vr% eSa [email protected]:0 izfrekg mldh vk; ekurk gwWA blesa ls [email protected] og Loa; ij O;; djrk gksxkA bl izdkj e`rd ij ;kphx.k dh vkfJrrk [email protected]:0 izfrekg vkrh gSa e`rd dh rFkk mlds ekrk firk dh vk;q dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s eSa bl ekeys esa 16 dk xq.kkad ykxw djuk mfpr le>rk gwWA----------"
Although it is not known whether the insurance company has challenged the impugned award or not? but we find that following the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (2) TAC 677, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the assessed annual income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses, as the deceased was of marriageable age and would have settled in his life after marriage in near future, so his contribution to his parents would have considerably decreased. Thus, instead of 1/3rd, 50% ought to have been deducted from the annual income of the deceased for calculating the amount of compensation. Similarly the multiplier of '16' appears to have been selected on higher side, because it is applicable for the age group of above 35 years and below 40 years. Since allegedly the deceased himself was 20 years' old at the time of his death (which too is not certain but approximate), so it is difficult to conceive that the age of his parents would be around 35-40 years. If that is so, had the mother of the deceased given birth to the deceased at her age of 15-16 years only, which does not seem to be realistic because in the country side generally the age of the wife is lesser than her husband. If the age of the deceased was more than 20-years, then the age of his parents should have been much more than for which multiplier of '16' i.e. between 35+ and below 40 years, had been taken by the Tribunal and if it is more than the above age than the multiplier invoked ought to have been '14' or '15' and in that case the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants would be considerably lowered.
As regards income of the deceased, there is no straight jacket formula, so there is always a guess work to calculate just and fair compensation. The Tribunal has rightly held that there appears to be collusion between the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending truck has admitted the accident and has alleged that he was paying monthly pay of Rs. 2,000/- apart from Rs. 40/- per day as diet to the deceased. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal has not taken recourse to 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum for such persons or who are unemployed, but has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum as he was only a helper of the truck, which does not require any technical qualification. It was also not shown as to from when the deceased was working on the truck in question as helper to show his experience. In these circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal, as noted above, do not seem to be perverse or not based on evidence on record. The learned Tribunal has given good reasons for rejecting the claim of the claimants regarding alleged income of the deceased. Since this is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, so we are not inclined to disturb the usual deductions or the multiplier applied in the case by the learned Tribunal. However, we find that ultimately just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the appellants. It is trite law that compensation in motor accident claim cases should not be a bonanza for the claimants or source of profit nor it should be a pitfall on them. It should be just and fair. The endeavour of the Tribunal should be to place the claimants in pre-accident position with regard to their dependency on the income of the deceased. Normally second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act should be applied unless there are compelling reasons to take a different view.
In view of the above, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned award. Resultantly the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the appeal will not affect the rights of other parties.
Date: 21.08.2012 AK/-