JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 17.9.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Briefly slated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant-appellants filed a claim petition for the grant of compensation on account of death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The Claimants alleged that deceased Sarbjeet Singh on 26.5.2003 at 5.45 p.m. was going to Chakluwa from Sugar Factory, Bajpur by motor cycle. As soon as he reached near Police Station, Kaladhungi, a bus No. UP 24/6464 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the motorcycle due to which motorcycle collided with a Tata Sumo. Sarbjeet Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident. He was rushed to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries during his treatment. The claimants further stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 3,000 per month. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,57,000.
3. The Claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 Santosh Kumar in his written statement contended that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. The petition was bad for nonjoinder of the insurer of motor cycle and Tata Sumo. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, contested the case and alleged that the vehicle was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed as many as three issues. Issue No. 1 was with regard as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Issue Nos. 2 & 3 were framed as regard to the relief.
5. Claimants adduced documentary as well as oral evidence. Respondents filed copy of site map paper No. 25C. No oral evidence has been adduced by the respondents.
6. The learned Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the accident took place due to rash and negligentdriving by the bus driver. He held the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000 and after applying multiplier of 8 awarded a compensation of Rs. 70,000 for the pecuniary loss and Rs. 2,000 for the expenses incurred in the last rites. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is unrebutted evidence on record regarding monthly income of Rs. 3,000 of the deceased but the Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income which is not proper. The multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal is also not just and proper.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the multiplier should be taken considering the age of the deceased as Well as the age of the dependents of the deceased whichever is shorter. In the present case the age of the mother of the deceased is 55 years and thus a multiplier of 7 ought to have been applied. He also submitted that more than one-third of the amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased, as he was unmarried.
10. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is unrebutted statement of Sri Asha Singh on record. He stated that his son was earning Rs. 3,000 per month as he was a driver and at the time of accident he was driving the truck of Namdharl. Thus it is proved that the deceased was a driver, and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting one-third of this amount for the own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive, the monthly dependency of the claimants on the income of deceased comes to Rs. 2,000 i.e. Rs. 24,000 per annum. The claimants filed photo copy of the driving licence of the deceased, in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 18.6.1964, Therefore, he was about 39 years old at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal assessed the age of the mother of the deceased Smt. Jagir Kaur as 57-58 years which appears quite appropriate. The multiplier in this case shall apply according to the age of the mother of the deceased as he was unmarried. The Apex Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain v. Irfan Ahammed. (2002) 6 SCC 52, observed as under :
It is well-settled that life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiaries, whichever is shorter, is an important factor. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, (1969) 3 SCC 64. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 743, it was observed that :
“The appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalisation of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased or the age of the dependants whichever multiplier is lower.”
11. Thus a multiplier of 8 according to the age of the mother of the deceased should be applied in the instant case. As such the compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 8 = Rs. 1,92,000. The Claims Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000 for the expenses incurred in the last rites of the deceased and thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,94,000.
12. We accordingly modify the award to be in a sum of Rs. 1,94,000 with interest as awarded. The amount of award shall be paid to the claimants in cash. The amount already paid shall be given due credit.
