Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

DHANRAJ v. JEEWAN SINGH

2000-03-30

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2000
BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim case No. 125 of 1988, decided on 18. 8. 92. ( 2 ) MANOHAR Lal (25) died in an accident that took place on 29. 7. 1988 when truck no. MBS 1613 hit his scooter BHH 7996 at 4 p. m. in front of S. F. Line on the G. E. Road. At the time of accident, Jeewan singh was the owner, while Kishan was the driver of the vehicle. The truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. , raipur. The matter was reported to the police and a case under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and challan filed. ( 3 ) CLAIMANTS are father and mother of the deceased. Father was 50 while mother was 48 at the time of accident. The allegation is that Kishan was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the accident in which deceased received serious injuries resulting in his death on the spot. The deceased was working with his parents in ready-made garments business and was looking after them. Deceased was paying them Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 3,000 per month for domestic expenditure and they were dependent on him; he could live up to 70 years and improve the business. After the accident, they have been rendered without any support. Accordingly, they claimed Rs. 9,00,000 as compensation individually. ( 4 ) THE claim has been denied by the respondents and it is stated that the deceased died due to his own negligence when his scooter struck with the truck. The accident has been admitted, but responsibility has been put on the deceased. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed three issues. It found that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the truck driver and that the claimants are entitled to compensation. Accordingly compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been awarded besides Rs. 2,000 for damage to the scooter. The amount has been ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The claimants are not satisfied with the compensation so awarded. Mr. Accordingly compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been awarded besides Rs. 2,000 for damage to the scooter. The amount has been ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The claimants are not satisfied with the compensation so awarded. Mr. N. Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation is grossly at a low rate and, therefore, it should be increased. Therefore, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel for parties and perused the record. ( 7 ) WE find that just compensation has not been paid to the claimants in this case. Evidence is that the deceased was 25 years' old at the time of accident, father was 50, while mother was 48. Therefore, looking to the present life expectancy, they are expected to live reasonably up to 70 years. The deceased was only 25 years' old and the evidence suggests that he was earning rs. 2,500 to Rs. 3,000 per month. He was paying Rs. 2,000 to his parents for household expenses. Therefore, the dependency may be counted on 1/3rd of the average of rs. 2,500 to Rs. 3,000 which comes to rs. 2,700 per month. Deceased was also sharing the same kitchen, therefore, he could share 1/3rd of the household expenditure. Thus the dependency should be Rs. 1,800 per month. In a case of this nature, taking into consideration the age of the parents and death of the deceased, the reasonable multiplier should be 13. The total amount of compensation shall, therefore, be Rs. 2,80,800 (Rs. 21,600 x 13 =rs. 2,80,800 ). The compensation so awarded shallcarry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. ( 8 ) MR. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the liability for payment of compensation above Rs. 1,50,000 is of the owner and driver of the vehicle. This submission is based on the plea raised in the written statement filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that statement in the written statement, coupled with production of photocopy of cover note is enough to show that liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 1,50,000. We are not satisfied with this contention. Plea has to be established by production of necessary evidence. Learned counsel submits that statement in the written statement, coupled with production of photocopy of cover note is enough to show that liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 1,50,000. We are not satisfied with this contention. Plea has to be established by production of necessary evidence. Taking of plea in the written statement and filing of photocopy of the cover note is not enough. Pleadings are to be proved in a manner envisaged in the law of evidence. Assuming that the liability under the Act is restricted to rs. 1,50,000, yet the insurance company can be made liable to pay total compensation in case extra premium has been paid, which has to be proved by it, but no such plea has been taken nor proved. With this background, it is the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,80,800, Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000 towards damage to the scooter. However, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum allowed by the Tribunal, payable from the date of application to the date of payment. The amount shall be paid within two months from the date of judgment. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .