Heard Sri R.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and perused the record of this first appeal as well as of the Tribunal.
This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.V. Act') has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and awarded dated 17.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Pratapgrah (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACP No.88 of 2005 (Ram Nihor and others Vs. Ram Saran and another), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- in favour of the claimants with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
The short question for consideration before this Court is;
"whether 1/3rd deduction is required to be made from the amount assessed for determination of compensation payable to the claimant?"
Brief facts for deciding this first appeal from order as well as the aforesaid question, in short, are that on 17.04.2005 at abut 9:30 a.m., when Smt. Urmila Devi was going to Babuganj along with others by Tonga, a Marshal Jeep having Registration no.37-B 1547 came in rash and negligence manner and hit the Tonga from its back near the Village Majhilgaon, District Pratapgarh. Consequently, Smt. Urmila Devi sustained injuries and she admitted in the hospital at Kunda, District Pratapgarh where she was succumbed to injuries. A first information report was lodged about the accident. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed by the husband and the minor children of the deceased. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-Insurance Company.
During the course of claim proceedings, an application (Paper No.17 C-2) under Section 170 of M.V. Act was moved by the appellant and the same was allowed by the Tribunal to the extent that the Insurance Company has been permitted to cross examine the witnesses and to contest on all grounds.
The Tribunal while determining Issue No.4, which is in relation to the quantum, on the basis of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others; 2002 (1) TAC 138 (SC) ruled that in the cases of housewives where she rendered her services for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Thereafter, the Tribunal on the basis of another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Road Trasport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others; 2005 (2) TAC 304 (SC) applied the multiplier of 12 to annual assessment of the services rendered by the deceased at the rate of Rs.36,000/-, determined the compensation without making any deduction towards personal expenses of deceased. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the services rendered by the deceased has been assessed in lieu of money, therefore, no deduction is required to be made because this amount is not assessed as income of the deceased. Apart from it, a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants towards expenses of last rituals and as such, a total compensation is of Rs.4,34,000/- with interest as stated hereinabove has been awarded by the Tribunal.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in this case 1/3rd deduction has to be made from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajapriya (Supra). He also relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in FAFO No.384 of 20060 (The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hayat Ali and others) decided on 22.10.2009 wherein 1/3rd deduction has been made from the income of the deceased for determining the dependency of the claimants upon the income of the deceased. Relying upon another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. R. Swaminathan and others; 2006 (1) TAC 965 (SC), it has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the amount awarded by the Tribunal, could not be enhanced in absence of any cross objection or appeal preferred by the claimants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel also relied upon the provisions of Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC wherein it has been provided that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that in this case, the deduction was rightly not made by the Tribunal on the basis of analogy applied and incorporated in Lata Wadhwa' case (Supra) with the award. He also submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct which ought to have been 15 as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC).
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 did not raise any argument and simply supports the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to deduction is concerned, as the services rendered by the deceased have been assessed by the Tribunal and not the income, therefore, no deduction is required to be made. Therefore, I do not find any justification in interfering with the finding recorded by the Tribunal for not deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
It is well settled that when the computation is awarded after determining the income of the deceased then the rule applied for the deduction towards personal expenses incurred by the deceased in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) but when the basis for determination of compensation is not the income, there shall be no deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as observed in para 10 of the Lata Wadhwa's case (Supra), which is as under:
"10. So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/- for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be re-calculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000/- per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000/- per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be re-determined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000/- per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs.50,000/- towards the conventional figure."
So far as, the question of multiplier is concerned, I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The application of multiplier of 12 is not appropriate in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been affirmed by a three judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another; (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others; 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC).
However I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any cross appeal or cross objection filed by the appellant, the amount awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be enhanced.
No other point has been pressed or argued by either of the parties.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, I do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Office is directed to send back the record of the Tribunal forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
The statutory amount or any other amount deposited in this Court be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The compensation, if not deposited, the entire amount under the award of the Tribunal shall be deposited within a month from today. The amount under the award be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award by the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 18.9.2014 akverma