Sardar Jaswant Singh v. Shahjadi — 1990 DIGILAW 350 (MP)

ORDER K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the Award dated 31.3.1984, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (hereinafter called the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 31 of 1980: Mst. Shahiadi and Anr. v. Sardar Jaswant Singh and 2 Ors. The appeals is by the non-applicants 1 and 2, who are owner and driver respectively of the truck. The claimants have also filed Cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 12.3.1980, the truck No. M.P.L. 4872 was being driven by the appellant No. 2 Jawaharlal, who is an employee of the appellant No. 1 Sardar Jaswant Singh, the owner of the truck. The deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan aged about 32 years was travelling along with and sitting by the side of Jawaharlal, the driver of the truck, About 3 Kilometers away from the village Him, the said truck met with an accident resulting in the death of Abdul Gaffer Khan. The respondent No. 1 is the widow of the deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan. The claim was also filed by Mst. Sugrabi (deceased respondents No. 2), the mother of the deceased Abdul Gaffer Khan, who has expired during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives Abdul Rajjak and 9 others have been brought on record. The respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company. 3. The claimants made an application under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation claiming Rs. 50,000/- but the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,720/- only. The award is passed only against the appellants. The Insurance Company (the non-applicant No. 3) before the Claims Tribunal and (respondent No. 3) before this Court has been exonerated because of the plea of the Insurance Company that passengers were not allowed in the truck as per policy. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants/non-applicants is that the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation because the accident took place due to mechanical defect The tie-rod of the truck was broken and according to the appellants, the deceased himself was negligent. He jumped out of the truck and died due to the injuries on that account. 5. He jumped out of the truck and died due to the injuries on that account. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant/respondents submitted that the allegations of the appellants are wrong. The accident took place due to rash and Negligent driving of the truck by the appellant No. 2 Jawaharlal. The deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan at the time of accident was aged about 32 years. His grand-father died at the age of 75 years. At the time of the accident, Abdul Gaffer Khan was earning Rs. 350/- per month. The Claims Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 16 but should have calculated the amount on the basis of difference in age between 75 and 32 years. The learned Counsel also submitted that interest should also have been allowed by the Claims Tribunal. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company is not liable for any payment, because passengers were not permitted in the truck as per Insurance Policy. He relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kallu Maharaj v. Meenabai and Ors. 1989 A.C.J. 770, which is also reported in 1989 J.L.J. 490. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties on either side, I am of the opinion that the appeal as well as the Cross-objection are liable to be dismissed, except that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application. 8. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the accident took place due to mechanical defect has not been proved by the appellants. They have also not proved that the deceased himself was responsible for his death. There is nothing no record to hold that the deceased jumped out of the truck and died on account of that. 9. The contention of the claimants on the point of multiplier has also no force. In a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court (Indore Bench) in State of M.P. v. Ashadevi 1989 J.LJ. 541 held that the compensation should neither be punitive nor should it be a source of profit to the person in whose favour it is to be decreed. The compensation should not be a windfall because of the abrupt death nor claimant should be permitted to make a fortune out of misfortune. 541 held that the compensation should neither be punitive nor should it be a source of profit to the person in whose favour it is to be decreed. The compensation should not be a windfall because of the abrupt death nor claimant should be permitted to make a fortune out of misfortune. One the other hand, the compensation should not be low, but it should be just and proper. In that case, the deceased was between the age of 30 to 40 years and the multiplier of 15 was adopted. However, regarding award to interest, the Court held that minimum interest in compensation cases has to be awarded at 12% per annum from the date of the application. So, in this case, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive for the life of a person aged 32 years, who was getting Rs. 350/- per month as pay and spending Rs. 150/- on himself and was paying Rs. 200/- to his wife for expenses on herself and on his mother. According to the Tribunal, the annual pecuniary value was Rs. 2400/- and applying 16 as multiplier, the compensation was worked out at Rs. 38,400/ -. After giving deduction of 20% on account of lump-sum payment, the amount awarded came to Rs. 30,720/-. I think, this amount was just and reasonable. No interference in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is called for. 10. So far as the liability of Insurance Company is concerned, the case is fully covered by a Full Bench decision of this court in Kallu Maharaj's case (supra.) This case has also been followed by a Division Bench of this court in The New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Singh and Ors. 1990 M.P.J.R. 233. So far as payment of interests concerned, the claimants' are awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. To this extent only the award is modified. 11. The appeal is dismissed. Cross objection is partly allowed. The appellants will bear the costs of the claimants/respondents. Counsel's fee as per schedule.