Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 197 (MP)

NASRIN v. GOVINDRAM

2001-03-01

R.D.VYAS

body2001
SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 31. 7. 98 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaora, District Ratlam in claim Case No. 46 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE case of the appellants is that on 6. 5. 1993 the deceased Rafik Khan, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 went to the bus stand for going to Khachrod. He climbed the roof of the bus No. CPU 222 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 for keeping his luggage. Before he could get down from the roof of the bus, the respondent No. 1 drove the bus, as a result of which Rafik Khan fell down from the roof and sustained serious injuries and died in the way while being taken to hospital. He was aged about 20 years and was earning Rs. 30,000 per year. The appellant widow of the deceased for herself and on behalf of her minor son ali Hussain alias Gudda alias Tofik Khan as guardian, filed the Claim Case No. 46 of 1993 seeking compensation amount of rs. 11,40,000. The mother, sisters of the deceased and father Munne Khan for himself and for Ali Hussain alias Tofik Khan alias Gudda, the son of the deceased, as guardian filed Claim Case No. 49 of 1993 seeking compensation of Rs. 9,39,000. The respondents resisted the claim made by the appellants. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. CPU 222 by respondent No. 1 Govindram and awarded compensation of Rs. 96,000. However, it dismissed the claim Case No. 49 of 1993. ( 3 ) MR. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is inadequate and it should be enhanced. On the other hand, Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. The fact of driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner has not been challenged before us, and rightly so, in view of the evidence on record. Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. The fact of driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner has not been challenged before us, and rightly so, in view of the evidence on record. ( 5 ) NOW we shall consider whether the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is inadequate and it deserves to be enhanced. ( 6 ) IT has come in the evidence of Nasrin and Bhadar Khan that the deceased Rafik was earning Rs. 150-200 per day. But this evidence stands contradicted with the statement of Munne Khan, the father of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased rafik and his brother Shakir were working at bus stand as mechanic and were earning rs. 100-150 per day jointly. The learned tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs. 30 per day by working as labourer. It is common knowledge that generally the income of the deceased is exaggerated by the claimants. We in view of the evidence on record hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 50 per day and Rs. 1,500 per month. After deducting '/3rd of it for the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants comes to rs. 1,000 per month and yearly Rs. 12,000. It has come in the evidence of appellants that the deceased was aged about 22 years. The Tribunal selected multiplier of 15. In our opinion, the correct multiplier would be 17. By multiplying it with the multiplicand the amount of compensation comes to (Rs. 12,000 x 17) Rs. 2,04,000. Appellant No. 1 is also entitled to Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. On addition of this sum the amount of compensation comes to rs. 2,11,000. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified and it is directed that the respondents shall pay Rs. 2,11,000 severally and jointly to the appellants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation (afteradjusting the amount already deposited)within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount be apportioned in equal share to the appellants. Rs. 2,11,000 severally and jointly to the appellants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation (afteradjusting the amount already deposited)within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount be apportioned in equal share to the appellants. Rs. 30,000 with accrued interest out of the share of the appellant No. 1 the widow, be deposited in maximum interest paying scheme in nationalised bank for a period of six years and balance amount with accrued interest, be paid to her by cross order account payee cheque in her name and the entire share of the appellant No. 2, minor son be deposited in maximum interest paying scheme of nationalised bank for a period of 10 years or till he attains majority, whichever is later. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .