Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 612 (MP)

Babulal v. M. P. E. B.

1998-08-21

B.A.KHAN, SHAMBHOO SINGH

body1998
JUDGMENT This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 412/90 filed by claimant Babulal and M.A. No. 413/90 filed by Oriental Insurance Company against the award dated 30.8.90 passed by IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in claim case No. 24/90 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It was not in dispute that the truck No. 6369 belonged to non-applicant No. 1 M.P.E.B. and was insured with non-applicant No. 4, the Oriental Insurance Co. and non-applicant No. 3 Mahendra was the driver. The case of the claimants, mother and father of the deceased Lalit Kumar, was that on 9.2.86 at 3-4 p.m. Lalit Kumar was sitting in the betel shop of Paraskumar. At the instance of the driver Mahendra, Manoharsingh started the truck and reversed it and in doing so dashed it against the betel shop, as a result of which Lalit Kumar sustained injuries and died on the same day. The claimants mother and father filed claim petition (claim case No. 24/90) seeking compensation of Rs. 3,10,000/-. The non-applicants resisted the claim. The Insurance company pleaded that the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. It also pleaded that its liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal after recording evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Mahendra Singh who drove it at the instance of Manoharsingh, driver of this truck. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and assessed dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month and applying multiplier of 18 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Insurance Company and the claimants have come up in appeal against the award. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, submitted that the tribunal committed error in assessing dependency of the family at Rs. 10,000/- and in not selecting multiplier of 20. On the other hand, Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondents/non-applicants, submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in not taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased while selecting multiplier. She was aged about 52 years, therefore, the multiplier of 10 should have been applied. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. She was aged about 52 years, therefore, the multiplier of 10 should have been applied. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of Babulal (CW 1), Punamchand (CW 2) and Mannalal (CW 4) rightly held that the age of the deceased Lalit Kumar was 23 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal was wrong in deducting Rs. 1,000/- for personal expenses of the deceased, it ought to have deducted 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs. 650/- for personal expenses of the deceased and determined dependency at Rs. 1,350/- per month and yearly Rs. 16,200/-. The Tribunal further committed error in selecting multiplier of 16 taking into consideration the age of the deceased only. In selecting multiplier, not only the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration but the age of the dependants is also very material, and the lower multiplier has to be adopted. In case of 1993 A.C.J. 748 (SC) National Insurance Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das and others, the Supreme Court considered this point and observed : "Appropriate method of assessment of compensation is the method of capitalization of net income choosing a multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased and the age of the dependants, whichever multiplier is lower." The decision of the Supreme Court in 1997(5) SCC 435 , Adikanda Sethi through L.Rs and another v. Palani Swami Saran Transports and another and 1996(4) SCC 362 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, relied by Shri Mehta, do not help him as this point was not considered in these cases. In view of above, in selecting multiplier age of the deceased which was 23 years and that of his mother and father which was 52 years and 57 years has to be taken into consideration. On the basis of the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 comes while .on mother's age appropriate multiplier is 11. Under such circumstances, the lower multiplier 11 has to be adopted. When the multiplicand is multiplied by 11, the amount comes to Rs. 1,78,200/- (2000-650 x 12 x 11). The claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,000/- each for loss of love and affection, thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,94,200/-, rounded off to Rs. 1,94,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. When the multiplicand is multiplied by 11, the amount comes to Rs. 1,78,200/- (2000-650 x 12 x 11). The claimants are entitled to Rs. 8,000/- each for loss of love and affection, thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,94,200/-, rounded off to Rs. 1,94,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Under these circumstances, we do not think it proper to interfere in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is just and reasonable compensation. Shri Dandwate further submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to only Rs. 50,000/- as policy Ex.D.1 was 'Act policy' and on the date, when this accident took place, section 95 of the Act was in force and it provided for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the third parties. On the other hand, Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that from the insurance policy Ex.D.1, it is clear that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. We perused Ex.D.1. In it limits of liability to their parties have been shown as under : "Limit of the amount of Company's liability under Section II-1(i) in respect of anyone accident -- Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Limit of the amount of the Company's liability under Section II-1(ii) in respect of anyone claim or series of claims arising out of one event -- Rs. 50,000/-." This endorsement makes it clear that the insurer had agreed under section II-1(i) to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any persons caused by motor accident, such amount as was necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. The liability to pay in respect of damage to property was limited to Rs. 50,000/- and it has been mentioned in section II-1(ii). The non-mentioning of 'Act policy' or amount in II-1(i) indicates that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. The Insurance Co. also did not file tariff of show extents of liability. We, therefore, hold that the liability of the appellant was unlimited. The period of Bank deposit is reduced to 8 years. In the result, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and by the claimants fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.