Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1046 (MP)

Union of India v. Mithilesh Kumari

2002-11-26

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, S.P.KHARE

body2002
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29.9.1993 of the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 90 of 1992 by which the learned Member of the Tribunal has directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- towards damages to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of the death of Sushil Kumar, husband of respondent No. 1 and son of respondent No.2 in an accident on 23.9.1988. The respondents had filed an application claiming compensation for the death of Sushil Kumar alleging that while Sushil Kumar was going as a passenger in jeep beating registration No. MBA 3742, the appellant No. 2 came driving from behind, his vehicle bearing registration No. 79 D-33626 H and on account of rash and negligent driving, collided with the jeep resulting in death of Sushil Kumar. The claim was resisted on the ground that the accident had not occurred on account of any rashness or negligence of the driver of the vehicle of the appellants but purely on account of fault and negligence attributable to the driver of the jeep. It was stated that Sushil Kumar was standing on the foot-rest of the jeep and the jeep driver had suddenly applied brake which resulted in collision of the two vehicles and as Sushil Kumar had been precariously clinging to the jeep he had flung out and received injuries. The Tribunal framed five issues and on the basis of the evidence it found that it was on account of the negligence of the appellant No.2 that the accident occurred and that the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling was not negligent and it was, therefore, not necessary to implead the owner and the driver of the jeep. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal saddled the appellants with the liability of payment of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the statement of the driver of the vehicle (appellant No.2), it was clear that it was purely on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep that the accident had occurred and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants were liable for the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the statement of the driver of the vehicle (appellant No.2), it was clear that it was purely on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep that the accident had occurred and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants were liable for the compensation. Appellant No. 2 Havaldar Prem Nath examined himself on oath and stated before the Claims Tribunal that his vehicle was fully loaded and he was proceeding from Rewa to Allahabad behind a jeep in which 10-12 persons were travelling and one person was standing on the foot-rest. According to his statement, 'weather was not good and it was drizzling. He further stated that the driver of the jeep suddenly applied brake on seeing a truck approaching from the opposite direction, His vehicle skidded with the result the left side comer of his vehicle collided with the jeep. He could, however, not tell how the boy who was standing on the foot-rest of the jeep sustained injury. He has admitted in his deposition that because his vehicle was loaded it took time to stop. This shows that had the vehicle not been loaded, the vehicle would have stopped before and averted collision. The driver of the vehicle has clearly admitted that there was distance of 20-25 yards between the jeep and his vehicle. The fact that despite there being distance of 20-25 yards between the jeep and the vehicle, he could not stop his vehicle itself shows negligence on his part and that he did not take immediate steps to avert the accident. The finding of the Claims Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal, while holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month, has applied multiplier of 40 which, contends the learned counsel, is quite high. The learned counsel has submitted that in no case the Claims Tribunal could have applied multiplier of more than 18 and in this connection he has also referred to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal has found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 20/- per day and out of this income, he was contributing a sum of Rs. The Claims Tribunal has found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 20/- per day and out of this income, he was contributing a sum of Rs. 300/- per month to the family and on that basis, after applying a multiplier of 40, the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,44,000/-. In our Opinion, the Tribunal has not correctly worked out the amount of compensation. On the basis of the income of the deceased, the monthly income comes to Rs. 600/-. Out of this meagre income, the deceased must not have been spending half of it on himself but at the most, 1/4th of his income on himself and contributing 3/4th to the family. Thus the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs. 450/-. The deceased has left behind a widow aged 18 years and, therefore, multiplier of 20 in the facts and the circumstances of the case would be proper. Accordingly, we find that the amount of compensation that should be awarded in the present case should be 450 x 12 x 20 = 1,08,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum which also we find excessive. According to us, interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be quite reasonable. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment. Out of the above amount, claimant No. 2 (respondent No.2) Smt. Lolariya shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 36,000/and the remaining amount shall be payable to Smt. Mithilesh Kumari (respondent No.1). This appeal is thus partly allowed.