JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
1. Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), aggrieved of the award dated 9.10.1995, passed in MCC No. 54 of 1992, by 9th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal.
2. The circumstances, in which the accident occurred are not in dispute. When the deceased Rajendra Singh was going on his Bullet motor cycle No. HIB 7313 on 5.8.1990, at about 10.45 p.m., at the turning of Alpana Talkies he was dashed by mini bus No. CIC 9508, driven by the respondent No. 6, owned by respondent No. 7 and insured with the appellant. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the mini bus. The deceased was 30 years of age. After deducting Rs. 500/- as personal living expenses of the deceased from the monthly earning of Rs. 1,700/-, the dependency was estimated as Rs. 1,200/- per month, yearly at Rs. 14,400/-. Applying the multiplier of 30, the amount worked out to Rs. 4,32,000/-. For loss of company Rs. 25,000/- were awarded each to the widow and to the minor daughter, Rs. 20,000/- to the parents and Rs. 5,000/to the respondent No. 5, the brother were awarded. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of future income and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses were also awarded. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 5,32,000 to the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till deposit was awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.
3. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the compensation so determined by the Tribunal is completely ignoring the law declared by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). The compensation so awarded is highly excessive and is windfall against the Table.
4. Mr. V.S. Choudhary, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that appeal is not maintainable as the insurer cannot challenge the quantum of compensation. The award of compensation is just and fair and is not so excessive, which deserves to be enhanced as the deceased's income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, cross-objections filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 deserve to be allowed.
5. The owner and driver remained ex pane before the Tribunal. The insurer appellant was permitted to contest the application for compensation on all the grounds which were available to the owner/driver. Hence, the contention that the appellant cannot challenge the quantum of compensation cannot be accepted.
6. The respondents in their application under Section 166 of the Act, have averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,700/- per month by taking contracts of tube-well boring and drilling. However, the widow, AW 1, in her testimony stated that the deceased who was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month used to give Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 1,900/- per month for the household expenses. To prove the earning of the deceased, no legal evidence was produced except the oral statement of AW 1, therefore, the dependency at Rs. 1,200/- per month was estimated which considering the number of dependants, after deducting Rs. 200/- per month for personal expenses of the deceased from Rs. 1,700/- monthly earning deserves to be increased from Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased and the dependants, the multiplier of 16 is applied to the appropriate multiplicand of Rs. 18,000/-, the amount would work out to Rs. 2,88,000/-. In that Rs. 15,000/- is added towards consortium and Rs. 15,000 for loss to the estate and a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation would come to Rs. 3,21,000/-, which the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would be entitled to get with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 24.1.1991. Therefore, we direct the applicant to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of 2 months from the date of supply of certified copy, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 673 (SC).
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Cross-objections are dismissed. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. In these circumstances the parties to bear their own costs.