IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA No 135 of 1997
1 Smt Nirmala Singhvi
2 Netin
3 Ku Neerja
4 Neeti jain
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 Govardhan Dhruv
2 Shashikant Attwani
3 National Insurance Co Ltd
...Respondents
! Miss Madhu Modi counsel for the appellants claimants
^ Shri P R Patankar counsel for the respondent no 3 Insurance Company
Honble Shri Jagdish Bhalla Ag CJ &
Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J
Dated: 30/07/2007
: Order
Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents
Claims Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation
amount awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
O R D E R
(Passed on this 30th day of July 2007)
The following order of the Court was delivered by
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
In this appeal by the appellants/claimants for
enhancement of compensation, the award dated 23rd
August, 1996 passed by the 7th Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred
to as `the M.A.C.T.’) in claim case No. 19 of 1995
awarding compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- for accidental
death of Neelamchand Singhvi, aged about 57 years, a
Superintending Engineer in Public Works Department at
Raipur, is under challenge.
2. It is not in dispute in this appeal that on
12.11.1993 while Neelamchand Singhvi was returning from
the Railway Station to his home by Maruti Van No.
M.P.002/0180, it was hit by a truck No.C.P.S.9754
driven by respondent/non-applicant No.1, owned by
respondent/non-applicant No.2 and insured by
respondent/non-applicant No.3. As a result of the
accident Neelamchand Singhvi sustained serious injuries
and during hospitalization at Government Hospital,
Raipur, was shifted to Nagpur where he died on
28.11.1993. After the death of Neelamchand Singhvi,
the appellant No.1/claimant i.e. widow is receiving
family pension at Rs.3,126/- every month. The
appellants/claimants No.2 and 3 are the son and the
daughter of the deceased. Another daughter i.e. the
appellant/claimant No.4 Ms. Neeti Jain is married. It
is also not in dispute that the accident occurred due
to negligence of the driver of truck No.C.P.S.9754 and
respondent/non-applicant No.3 is under a statutory
liability to pay compensation.
3. The learned M.A.C.T. has, on the basis of
admission of Ms. Nirmala Singhvi,
assessed monthly dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month and
recorded finding that on the date of accident the
deceased was aged 57 years i.e. in the age group of 55
to 60 years, and therefore, applied multiplier of 8 on
the basis of second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, on the
basis of admission by Smt. Nirmala Singhvi that she was
receiving Rs.3,126/- per month as family pension and
had also received 75,000/- towards provident fund,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards gratuity and Rs.20,000/- from the
Association, the M.A.C.T. reduced the loss of
dependency to Rs.1,000/- per month and applying the
multiplier of 8, as provided under second schedule,
assessed loss of dependency at Rs.96,000/- (Rs.1,000/-
x 12 x 8). Despite non-production of proof of expenses
incurred on conveyance from Raipur to Nagpur for
hospitalization and treatment during hospitalization
and also the statement of Nitin Singhvi that some of
the expenses incurred on treatment were reimbursed, the
learned M.A.C.T. awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/-
towards conveyance charges for taking Neelamchand
Singhvi to Nagpur and for expenses in treatment.
Rs.15,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium to the
appellant/claimant No.1. Nothing was awarded towards
loss of estate and loss of love and affection to the
three children. The learned M.A.C.T. did not award any
amount towards funeral expenses on the ground that even
if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural death, such
expenses would have been incurred. In this manner, the
learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- as
compensation and disentitled the appellants No. 2 & 4
i.e. the son and the married daughter of the deceased
from receiving any part thereof on the ground that
while the son was an earning member, the daughter had
already got married.
4. Miss Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants urged that the compensation
awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is niggardly low and
contended that the learned M.A.C.T. ought not to have
taken into consideration the amount of family pension
while reducing the loss of dependency to Rs.1,000/-
because even if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural
death, such pension would have been received by the
family. Reliance was placed on Smt. Fulmati Bai and
others v. Panchamsingh and others A.I.R.1998 M.P. 173.
It was next contended that the accident had occurred on
12.11.1993 whereas the second schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 14.11.94.
Placing reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
others vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others (2002) 6
SCC 281 and V.S.Gowdar vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited II (2002) ACC 559, a full Bench decision
rendered by the Karnataka High Court, it was urged that
the correct multiplier to be applied for age 57 years
is 9. It was also urged that the Tribunal erred in
holding that the married son and daughter who were not
the dependents of the deceased were not entitled to
compensation. They being legal representatives under
section 166 of the Act could not be denied
compensation. Reliance was placed on Smt. Manjuri Bera
vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 AIR SCW 1962 and
Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and another (1999) 1 SCC 90.
5. On the other hand, Shri P. R. Patankar, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company argued in support of
the amount awarded.
6. Having considered the rival contentions, we have
perused the record. In this appeal, it is not disputed
that Neelamchand Singhvi was Superintending Engineer in
Bridge Corporation, Public Works Department and was
aged about 57 years, on the date of accident, which had
occurred on 12.11.1993. It is also not in dispute that
he died on 28.11.1993. The second schedule to the
Motor Vehicles Act was introduced w.e.f. 14.11.1994.
Miss Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants urged that relying upon the
principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma
Thomas and others AIR 1994 SC 1631, a Division Bench of
the Karnataka High Court drew up the appropriate
multiplier for different age groups in a tabular form
wherein the multiplier 9 is applicable for age group of
53-57 years in case of accidents occurred prior to
14.11.1994 and submitted that this was further relied
in V.S.Gowder’s case (supra). Under the second
schedule introduced from 14.11.1994, the correct
multiplier applicable for age group of 55-60 years is
8. Smt. Nirmala Singhvi did not depose the age of the
deceased on the date of the accident. Her son Dr.
S.K.Choubey A.W.2 also remained silent on this point.
A perusal of the record shows that no documentary proof
whatsoever was filed by the claimants on this count.
Even in the application for compensation, although the
age of Neelamchand Singhvi was shown to be
approximately 57 years, yet it was further stated that
only 8 months were left for his retirement. The
M.A.C.T. has, therefore, rightly assessed the age of
the deceased as more than 57 years on the date of
accident. Therefore, since the deceased had completed
57 years and four months, the Tribunal was justified in
applying the multiplier 8 instead of multiplier 9. In
the tabular form drawn in Gulam Khader and Another vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited and another ILR
2000 Kar. 4416, multiplier 9 was applicable only to the
age group of 53 to 57 years. Since the deceased was
more than 57 years, we are of the considered opinion
that the M.A.C.T. committed no error in applying the
multiplier of 8.
7. No documentary proof of the salary drawn by
Neelamchand Singhvi was produced and no such fact was
pleaded by the appellants/claimants in their
application under Section 166 of the Act. The M.A.C.T.
has accepted the unrebutted testimony of Smt. Nirmala
Singhvi that she used to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/-
every month from her husband for expenses towards
family. Taking into consideration the post held by
Neelamchand Singhvi such inference drawn by the
M.A.C.T. is justified. The M.A.C.T. has thus rightly
held that the loss of monthly dependency was Rs.5,000/-
8. The M.A.C.T. took this fact into consideration
that Smt. Nirmala Singhvi was receiving family pension
of Rs.3,126/- every month and had also received a sum
of Rs.75,000/- towards provident fund, Rs.2,00,000/-
towards gratuity and Rs.20,000/- from the Association.
However, the approach of the Tribunal in deducting the
aforesaid sums from the monthly dependency of Rs.5,000/-
was wholly incorrect. In Smt. Fulmati Bai and others
v. Panchamsingh and others A.I.R.1998 M.P. 173 a
similar question arose before the Apex Court for
consideration. The Apex Court observed as follows:
“10. We have also examined the matter.
Simply because the widow of the deceased is
entitled to family pension or other
perquisites on account of the death of her
husband, has no co-relation with the
dependency which has to be worked out under
the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the service
conditions, even otherwise also, in normal
course, if a husband dies a natural death,
then also family pension is paid to the
deceased’s dependents. Today also the
perquisites which are being paid to the
dependents of the deceased even while
serving in the Institutions, are social
measures and they have nothing to do with
the death of the deceased while dying a
natural death or by accident. Therefore,
on account of the death of the deceased in
an accident, such amount cannot be taken
into consideration, because even otherwise
also in normal course, in the event of
natural death, the family members of the
deceased are entitled to that benefit.
Therefore, that cannot be taken into
consideration for working out the
dependency of the family members.”
9. It is thus clear that neither the amount of
Rs.3,500/- which the widow of the deceased was getting
as family pension could be deducted from the monthly
dependency of Rs.5,000/- nor the amount of gratuity,
provident fund and contribution by the Association
could be taken into consideration for reducing the
monthly dependency. In this view of the matter, we are
of the considered opinion that the M.A.C.T. grossly
erred in determining the loss of monthly dependency at
a niggardly low amount of Rs.1,000/-. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we take the loss of monthly
dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the
post held by Neelamchand Singhvi, we are of the
considered opinion that even after his retirement he
would have continued to provide a minimum amount of
Rs.5,000/- every month to his widow. We, therefore,
determine loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- and assess
total loss of dependency at Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.5000 x 12
x 8).
10. Nothing was awarded by the M.A.C.T. under
conventional heads. Except awarding loss of consortium
at Rs.15,000/-. Nothing was awarded towards loss of
estate and funeral expenses. The approach of the
M.A.C.T. that even in case of natural death expenses
towards funeral would have been incurred, and
therefore, it could not be taken into consideration
while awarding compensation under Section 166 of the
Act is ridiculous. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of estate.
11. Ms. Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants
placed reliance on Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 AIR SCW 1962 wherein it was
held that a married daughter of the deceased though not
dependent on the deceased is also entitled to
compensation as she falls under the category of legal
representative under Section 166 of the Act. However,
in that case, the Apex Court was considering the
question of no fault liability under Section 140 of the
Act. In our considered opinion a married daughter and a
married son who are not dependent on the deceased are
also entitled to compensation for loss of love and
affection. We award a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards
loss of love and affection to the appellants/claimants
No.2 to 4. In this manner, we assess the total
compensation as under:
a) Loss of dependency : Rs.4,80,000
/-
b) Loss of estate : Rs.
25,000/-
c) Loss of consortium (as awarded
by the M.A.C.T.) Rs.
: 15,000/-
d) Loss of love and affection at
the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to Rs.
the appellants/claimants No.2 to 15,000/-
4 : e) Conveyance and treatment Rs.
expenses incurred by the widow 20,000/-
(as awarded by M.A.C.T.) :
f) Funeral expenses : Rs.
5,000/-
Total : ===========
Rs.5,60,000
/-
-----------
--------
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.
The award passed by the M.A.C.T. is modified and
compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- is awarded to the
appellants/claimants. After adjusting the amount
already paid, the respondent/insurer shall deposit the
remaining compensation with the M.A.C.T. within two
months from today, failing which, the Insurance Company
shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from the date of application till
realization.
Acting Chief Justice Judge