Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1031 (MP)

Bibiyana Khalko v. Asstt. Narcotics Commissioner

2000-09-19

R.D.VYAS, SHAMBHOO SINGH

body2000
This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by M.A.C.T. Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 62/96 for enhancement of compensation. The appellants-claimants' case in brief was that on 6.8.1994 Silvastar Khalko, Sub-Inspector, Narcotic Department, husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of the Appellants Nos. 2 to 4, was travelling in Maruti Jipsi, bearing registration No. M.P. 07 E-192, belonging to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 drove this vehicle in rash and negligent manner as a result of which it turned turtle wherein Silvastar Khalko sustained injuries and died. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 21,70,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the Respondent No.3 as a result of which it turned turtle which resulted in the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and held the dependency of the Appellants at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- yearly. But on the ground, that the appellants were being given family pension the Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 10,000/- yearly and applied multiplier of 14 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/-. Shri S.S. Samvatsar, L/c for the Appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in reducing the amount of dependency from Rs.24,000/-to Rs. 10,000/- yearly on the ground that the Appellant No. 1, the widow was granted family pension. It is also his grievance that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects in life. He also submitted that multiplier applied is also on lower side. On the other hand Shri Neema, L/c for the Respondents, supported the impugned award. We considered the arguments advanced by L/c for both sides and perused the record. It has not been disputed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the Respondent No.3 and the deceased sustained injuries and died. Bibiyana Khalko (AW 2), the widow of the deceased, deposed that her husband was receiving Rs. 3,500/- per month as salary. Madanlal Verma (NAW 1), the Officer Superintendent, Narcotic Department, stated that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,609/- and after deductions he was getting Rs. Bibiyana Khalko (AW 2), the widow of the deceased, deposed that her husband was receiving Rs. 3,500/- per month as salary. Madanlal Verma (NAW 1), the Officer Superintendent, Narcotic Department, stated that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,609/- and after deductions he was getting Rs. 1,593/- p.m. The deceased was in permanent Government Service. He would have got promotion and would have gone upto the post of Assistant Commissioner: On the contrary Shri Neema submitted that the deceased was facing Departmental Enquiry on the charge of corruption, it was also likely that he would have been dismissed from service. The respondents have not filed copy of charges. On the basis of mere suggestion it cannot be held that the deceased was facing Departmental Enquiry on the charge of corruption. The Tribunal committed error in supposing that there was probability of the deceased being retired before superannuation on the basis of above suggestion. As stated by (N.A.W. 1) Madanlal Verma, the deceased was receiving Rs. 1,593/- per month after necessary deductions, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting one third of it for the personal expenses of the deceased, determined the dependency at Rs. 2,000/-. But the Tribunal fell in error in further deducting Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the widow was receiving family pension after the death of the deceased. Full Bench of this Court in case of Kashmiran Mathur and others v. Sardar Rajendra Singh and another ( 1983 JLJ 113 ) held that the amount of family pension cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation. As stated above, the dependency of the family has been assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- yearly. The Tribunal held that the age of the deceased was 38 years and selected multiplier of 14. By multiplying it with the multiplicand (24,000 x 14) the amount comes to Rs. 3,36,000/-. The widow is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,43,000/-. Now we come to the point of distribution of the compensation amount. It is true that the appellant widow has remarried after the death of her husband. Still she is entitled to some amount. Admittedly, the widow is serving in the telegraph department and she is also receiving family pension. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,43,000/-. Now we come to the point of distribution of the compensation amount. It is true that the appellant widow has remarried after the death of her husband. Still she is entitled to some amount. Admittedly, the widow is serving in the telegraph department and she is also receiving family pension. In view of above, we direct that the Appellant No. 1, the widow be paid Rs. 50,000/- and rest of the amount be distributed equally among the appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the minor daughters and son of the deceased. Rs. 25,000/- out of the share of the Appellant with accrued interest be paid to her and rest of the amount be deposited in maximum interest paying scheme in nationalised bank for the period of six years. The balance, The share of remaining appellants with accrued interest be also deposited in the same way for a period of six years or till they become major, whichever is later. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and the impugned award stands modified as indicated above. No order as to costs.