Court No. - 6
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3620 of 2018
Appellant :- Roop Singh And 5 Ors
Respondent :- Ram Kishore Lodhi And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Hanuman Prasad Dube,Vipul Dube
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, District Jhansi in M.A.C.P. No. 363 of 2015.
The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect of the fixation of notional income. According the appellants the deceased was a house lady and was indulged in business of sale of milk. Admittedly, the husband of the deceased, namely, Roop Singh is simple labour.
The claim petition is filed by Roop Singh in which he has claimed that his wife, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
In this background, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hansnath Yadav and Others vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow reported in 2015 (1) T.A.C. 219 (All.).
Para 17 of the aforesaid referred judgment provides as follows:-
"17. In the present case, the deceased Smt. Rajmati Yadav was aged about 54 years and was performing the functions of skilled worker / self employed, in addition to her contribution to the family as wife or mother, who died in the accident occurred in the year 2002. Her income in usch circumstances could not be assessed at less than Rs. 5,000/- per month."
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that while applying the multiplier the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the same being 13 whereas admittedly the age of the deceased was determined while performing the postmortem as 40.
He has also submitted that the claimants have stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident the age of the victim-
deceased was 38 years.
In my opinion the Tribunal has not justified in determining the age of the deceased in between 46 to 50 years, recording the reason that at the time of accident the eldest son of the deceased was 20 years.
Normally in small town and villages the marriage took place at very early stage / age, therefore, the applicability of applying the multiplier being 13 is unjustified, which should have been as 15 as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121. This issue is to be considered by the Tribunal afresh.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not allowing the future prospect. He has relied upon the contents of his claim petition specifically claiming for the compensation with regard to the future prospects.
In this regard the relevant contents of the claim petition is quoted herein below:-
"यह ककि हम ययाचचीगण किको अपनची पत्नची, मयामाँ एवव पपुत्र वधपु किकी मकोटर दररटनया मम असयामयाकयकि ममृत्यपु हको जयानने सने वररमयान किने सहयकोग सने एवव भकवष्य मम आरररकि नपुकिसयान उठयानया पडनेगया अगर ममृरकिया किकी उक्त हयादसने मम ममृत्यपु न हहई हकोरची, रको वह कनशशचर हची लयाखखों रुपयया किमयारची व हर प्रकियार सने हम ययाचचीगण किकी पपूरची मदद किररची, रजसकिकी क्षकरपपूकरर ककिसची भची किकीमर पर सम्भव नहहीं हह, मयात्र सवरकोष किने रलए क्षकरपपूकरर हनेरपु आवनेदकिगण कवपक्षचीगण सने र0 37,00,000/- प्रकरकिर रयाकशि प्रयाप्त किरनने किने अरधकियारची हह।"
In my opinion this issue requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting the compensation under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, which according to the appellants should be to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-, 4,000/- and 15,000/- respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others AIR 2017 SC 5157 particularly paragraph 61.
In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is directed to re-examine the issue in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra).
The Tribunal is directed to provide the adequate opportunity to all parties and decide the matter within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
The appeal is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to re- determine and re-fix the claim after due consideration of the aforesaid material and judgments.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 SK Srivastava