Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 168 (MP)

RAJNI SUDHAKAR MANE v. GOVIND

2001-02-22

R.D.VYAS, SHAMBHOO SINGH

body2001
SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 22. 12. 1992 passed by Fourth Additional M. A. C. T. , Dewas, in Claim Case no. 65 of 1993. ( 2 ) CLAIMANTS' case, in brief, was that on 14. 2. 1992, at 6 p. m. the deceased, Sudhakar Shanker Mane, husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was coming to his house from the factory on his scooter. In Ram Bag, respondent no. 1 Govind, came from opposite direction, driving truck No. MBI 9535, belonging to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and insured with respondent No. 4, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him as a result of which he died. His age was 42 years and he was earning Rs. 72,090 per year from Hind Filters, where he was serving as Additional Production Manager. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 14,25,000. The respondents resisted the claim. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MBI 9535 as a result of which deceased Sudhakar Mane sustained injuries, and died and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. Being aggrieved of the compensation amount, the claimants have preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. G. K. Neema, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned tribunal in para 10 of the award held that the yearly earnings of the deceased was rs. 72,090 but without determining the dependency and applying multiplier, arbitrarily awarded Rs. 3,00,000. He submitted that compensation amount is hopelessly low. On the other hand, Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, insurance company, argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal committed error in determining compensation without adopting any method. There are various methods adopted for calculation in death cases. But the multiplier method is most appropriate as it is logically sound and legally established. By applying multiplier method, we shall assess dependency of the appellants. ( 6 ) RAJNI, widow of the deceased deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 7,000 per month. There are various methods adopted for calculation in death cases. But the multiplier method is most appropriate as it is logically sound and legally established. By applying multiplier method, we shall assess dependency of the appellants. ( 6 ) RAJNI, widow of the deceased deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 7,000 per month. Rajendra Kumar Jain, employee of Hind Filters Factory, deposed that the deceased was working as shift in-charge and Production Manager in the factory. He proved muster card, Exh. P-7 and salary certificate, Exh. P-6. In Exh. P-6, it has been mentioned that the deceased received rs. 72,090 during the period from 1. 1. 1991 to 31. 12. 1991. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that Exh. D-l is the last pay bill of the deceased and after necessary deduction the deceased received rs. 4,335. From perusal of Exh. D-l, it is clear that gross pay of the deceased was rs. 5,950 per month and after deduction, he was paid Rs. 4,335 in January, 1992. Contribution made by him towards G. P. F. , e. S. I. S. and E. P. F. cannot be deducted from salary while assessing earnings of the deceased. In Exh. D-l, income tax has not been deducted from the pay. Under such circumstances, we hold that he was earning Rs. 5,000 p. m. and yearly Rs. 60,000. On deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, dependency of the appellants come to Rs. 40,000 yearly. The deceased was of the age of 42 years as stated by Rajni, the wife of the deceased, and proved by other documents, hence we select multiplier of 15. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to (Rs. 40,000 x 15) Rs. 6,00,000. The appellant No. 1 is also entitled to Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. On addition of this amount, the compensation comes to Rs. 6,07,000. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that respondent nos. 1 to 3 and insurance company, respondent No. 4 severally and jointly shall pay Rs. 6,07,000, after deducting the amount already deposited, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. Out of the enhanced amount rs. 1,50,000 be paid to the appellant No. 1 the widow, Rs. 6,07,000, after deducting the amount already deposited, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. Out of the enhanced amount rs. 1,50,000 be paid to the appellant No. 1 the widow, Rs. 80,000 to the appellant no. 2 and rest of the amount to the appellant No. 3, with accrued interest. Each of the appellants be paid Rs. 30,000 out of the amount awarded to him/her and rest of the amount with accrued interest be deposited in maximum interest paying scheme in nationalised bank for a period of six years. Consequently, cross-objections stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .