Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh.J) (1) The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been preferred by the claimants appellants against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex-Cadre), Court No. 2, Sultanpur in MACP No. 364 of 2011 for the enhancement of compensation awarded.
(2) As borne out from the record and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, the accident in question occurred in the intervening night of 15/16-4-2011 when the truck of respondent no. 1, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 2 after having lost control and hitting a tree got overturned. The deceased Rakesh Kumar Sharma and several other persons sitting in the truck became injured. However, the deceased having injured seriously succumbed to his injures while being taken to the hospital. The claimants being the family members and dependents of the deceased presented a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act. The deceased was stated by them to be aged about 24 years at the time of accident and carrying on a driver's profession and having an earning of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
(3) The tribunal while passing the impugned award recorded a finding about accident having occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. It had also found that the truck had been insured for seven persons in all by respondent no. 1 and that the driver of the truck was holding not only a valid driving licence but the other papers of the truck were also in order.
(4) For computing the compensation the tribunal held the age of deceased to be 35 years at the time of accident in place of 24 years as pleaded by the claimants and also declined to accept the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per month. It appears that without making any appreciation of evidence of its own about possible income of the deceased and without indicating any multiplier which was required to be used it abruptly assessed an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as loss of dependency. To this it added Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- for mental peace and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as total compensation payable to the claimants with 6% interest per annum against the respondents fixing the liability of respondent no. 1 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. to make its payment.
(5) Dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred the present appeal as already stated hereinabove for its enhancement. It would be relevant to mention at this stage that no challenge to the impugned award has been made by the respondents by filing any cross appeal.
(6) It is clear from the perusal of the impugned judgment and award that no finding has been recorded by the tribunal about the age, profession and the income of the deceased, which could have been made the basis of calculation of the compensation amount. No effort has also been made by it to take into account the personal living expenses of the deceased. Even, there is no mention of any multiplier. We are at a complete loss to understand as to how calculation has been made of the loss of dependency. In a very strange and cryptic manner it has abruptly fixed the loss of dependency as Rs. 1,70,000/- and proceeded to grant other conventional benefits. The compensation so determined by the tribunal cannot be upheld or sustained in the eyes of law.
(7) A fresh calculation needs to be made by us of the compensation, payable to the appellants in view of evidence available on record.
(8) As regards the age and profession of the deceased at the time of accident, we find that the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, much before his death in the name of deceased, has been filed on record in which his date of birth has been shown as 3.3.86. This document appears to be more reliable than any other evidence on record about proof of the age of deceased. Accordingly, his age is found to be 25 years at the time of accident.
(9) It is observed that PW.1 and PW.2 both categorically stated that the deceased was doing the job of the driver. This fact was nowhere challenged by the respondents while making cross-examination with them. The driving licence of the deceased also indicates that he was entitled to drive even heavy motor vehicles.
(10) In Minu Rout Versus Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, 2013(31)LCD 2022 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the notional salary of a driver ought to be taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month due to skilled nature of his job. An amount of 30% is then also to be added to this monthly salary as future prospects. The notional income of a driver was, thus, held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be Rs. 6,000 + Rs. 18,00 = 7,800/- per month.
(11) In the present case also in view of the deceased being a truck driver and his job being that of skilled person, his notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per month cannot be held to be fair and justified. Thus, applying the same ratio as held in the case of Minu Rout (Supra) it is necessary that the compensation is calculated in the present case also on the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800/- per month, i.e., 93,600/- per annum. Considering the large number of claimants / legal heirs of the deceased, it shall be appropriate to deduct 1/4th amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, thus bringing the multiplicand to Rs. 93,600 - 23,400 =70,200/-.
(12) In view of modification made in the table provided in the Second Schedule of the Act in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(2) T.A.C. 677, by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the victims of the age group between 21 to 25 a multiplier of 18 is to be used. Accordingly, it is found that the appropriate multiplier for being used in the present case would also be 18.
(13) In view of above, applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs. 70,200 x 18 = Rs. 12,63,000/-.
(14) In Rajesh Versus Rajveer Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54, it has been held by a three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court that considering the increase in price index, a minimum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the spouse of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses shall also be payable, where required.
(15) In view of the aforesaid decision of Rajesh Versus Rajveer Singh(Supra), an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses is also provided to the claimants.
(16) The claimants are thus, found entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 13,88,600/- as compensation. This amount shall also carry simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment.
(17) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and award dated 11-12-2012 is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. The Respondent no. 1, Reliance General Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation before the Tribunal within a period of three months which shall be released in favour of the claimants as per the ratio provided by the Tribunal in the impugned award in further period of three months. Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to adjust amount, if any, already paid or deposited.
Order Date :- 25th March, 2014 S. Kumar