Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 839 (MP)

SNEHLATA SHARMA v. MOHAMMAD ALI

2000-08-17

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2000
BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in claim Case No. 53 of 1989, dated 7. 4. 92. ( 2 ) ON 26. 1. 1989, at about 12. 50 a. m. , deceased was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MIJ 938 when car bearing registration No. MBJ 1862, owned by respondent no. 2 Dr. P. T. Liao and driven by respondent No. 1 Mohammad Ali Mahe, coming at fast speed from the opposite direction at Nagrath Chowk, collided with the scooter. Due to this accident, the victim received serious injuries resulting in his death at Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Omti. The car was insured with respondent No. 3, United india Insurance Co. Ltd. Claimants are widow, daughter and son of the deceased. It is submitted that at the time of accident, deceased was employed as the Assistant station Master, Jabalpur, in the Central railways. At the time of accident, he was drawing Rs. 3,000 p. m. Compensation of rs. 8,00,000 was claimed. However, compensation of Rs. 1,44,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum has been awarded. Claimants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Mr. Sanjay agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the award is excessively low and deserves to be enhanced. It is also submitted that low multiplier has been applied and dependency has not been properly assessed. That apart, the award has not been properly disbursed. Mr. H. B. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , submits that the award is quite reasonable and justified on the facts of this case and that liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000. Mr. A. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 Dr. P. T. Liao, submits that liability is completely of respondent No. 3, United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , therefore, award is liable to be set aside to this extent. ( 4 ) DECEASED was 40 years and 16 days old at the relevant time and was earning rs. 2,511 p. m. as per the salary certificate (Annexure A-l ). P. T. Liao, submits that liability is completely of respondent No. 3, United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , therefore, award is liable to be set aside to this extent. ( 4 ) DECEASED was 40 years and 16 days old at the relevant time and was earning rs. 2,511 p. m. as per the salary certificate (Annexure A-l ). After deducting l/3rd towards his personal expenses, dependency comes to around Rs. 1,700 and yearly to rs. 20,400. In this case, proper multiplier should have been 15 instead of 12 used by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation awardable in this case comes to (Rs. 1,700 x 12 x 15) = Rs. 3,06,000. To this amount would be added Rs. 5,000 for consortium and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking the total to Rs. 3,13,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. ( 5 ) NOW the question is as to who should pay. this amount? We find that the insurance company has not taken the plea that its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000, as contended by Mr. H. B. Agrawal. It has been stated by way of additional plea that its liability is as per the Motor Vehicles act, 1939. This statement does not specify the exact amount for which the insurance company is liable. Policy of insurance has not been placed on record, therefore, it has not been proved. The defence so taken is not proved. Consequently, the insurance company is liable to pay the whole amount of compensation awarded in this case. Contention to the contrary is liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) LAST question is about the payment of compensation to the claimants. Snehlata (aged 37) is the widow of the deceased. Although she is employed, she is entitled to compensation on account of death of her husband. The other two claimants are smita Sharma (aged 13) and Lovly (aged 7), daughter and son of the deceased. We direct the disbursement of the amount as follows: (I) Snehlata Sharma (ii) Smita Sharma (iii) Lovly. . . 50 per cent. . . 25 per cent. . . 25 per centthe children are minors, therefore, the compensation awarded to them be invested in any nationalised bank till they attain majority or proper permission is sought from court for releasing the amount. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .