Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 811 (MP)

Bhirki And Ors. v. Sardar Jaspal Singh And Ors.

1992-12-04

M.W.DEO, V.S.KOKJE

body1992
JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is Claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation in the case of a death arising out motor accident. 2. It is not in dispute that on 28-7-90 truck bearing registration number C.I.U. 8153 was driven rashly and negligently and it hit Jhitra near village Deozire, District Jhabua with the result that Jhitra suffered injuries which proved fatal. 3. It is also not in dispute that the Claimants are widow, mother and two minor daughters of deceased Jhitra. Jhitra was 25 years of age and used to earn as a village labourer Rs. 25/- per day. The Claimants Claimed a total compensation of rupees 10,21,000/- on various counts. 4. The Tribunal held that Jhitra earned Rs. 600/- per month as a labourer, that dependency was Rs. 350/- due to loss of wages for six months together with Rs. 1680/- due to loss of argiculture making a total loss of earning of Rs. 3780/- per year. The age of Jhitra was held to be 30 years and, therefore, a multiplier of 15 was applied in view of the decision in State of M.P. v. Ashadevi 1988 M.P.L.J. 346. Rs. 5000/- were grantd on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 1000/- were granted for loss of bicycle. Thus a total award of Rs. 62,700/- was made in favour of the appellants with a direction that 2.5 % of the amount would go to the widow, 30% to the two minor daughters each and 15% to the old mother. The award was directed to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 3.8.90. 5. Having considered the submissions put-forth by learned Counsel for the appellants and having gone through the relevant evidence on record we find that the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal are based on good evidence and cannot be said to be erroneous on any count, nor can the assessment of quantum be said to be wanting of on any count. The Tribunal has considered all the factors correctly and by applying the well--settled principles of assessment of compensation has arrived at correct findings. 6. We do not see any reason to be interfered in the award under challenge and consequently this appeal cannot be entertained which is dismissed without notice to the other side.