Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 560 (MP)

Preetam Singh v. Imrat Singh

2002-05-17

AJIT SINGH, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2002
JUDGMENT S. K. Kulshrestha, J. -- This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 26th July, 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in MCC No. 55/1991, by which a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded to the Respondents on account of death of their son Bhujbal Singh in the accident with the tractor and Tro11ey driven by Preetam Singh (Appellant No. 1). The Respondents, on receipt of the notice of this appeal, have also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the owners of Tractor bearing registration No. MBD 8868 and that on 16.11.1991 at about 6.30 p.m. Preetam Singh was driving the Tractor from Bhopal to Berasia. It is also not in dispute that deceased Bhujbal Singh was coming from the opposite direction on a scooter and D.W. 2 Dhanraj Singh was on the pillion of his scooter. There was aconision with the Tractor and as a result of the injuries received by Bhujbal Singh, he died. The case of the applicants (Respondents) was that Bhujbal Singh was their son and on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by Preetam Singh, there was an accident in which Bhujabal Singh died. The claimants (Respondents), therefore, made c1aim on various grounds. The case of the appe11ants before the MACT was that the accident occurred on account of negligence of Bhujbal Singh who was drunk and driving the scooter at excessive speed. It was averred that on account of the accident Bhujbal Singh was thrown away. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation as stated herein above. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention to the evidence of DW 2 Dhanraj Singh who was pillion rider of the scooter in support of his contention that deceased Bhujbal Singh had consumed liquor on way and he was driving rashly and negligently. Learned Member of the Tribunal in this behalf referred to the post-mortem report and the evidence of PW 1 Dr. R.K. Sharma who has stated that the deceased had sustained crush injury which was possible only if the wheel had run over the deceased. D.W. 2 Dhanraj Singh had though stated that the deceased was drunk, in the FIR Ex. Learned Member of the Tribunal in this behalf referred to the post-mortem report and the evidence of PW 1 Dr. R.K. Sharma who has stated that the deceased had sustained crush injury which was possible only if the wheel had run over the deceased. D.W. 2 Dhanraj Singh had though stated that the deceased was drunk, in the FIR Ex. P/6 lodged by him, he had clearly stated that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that the wheel of the Tractor had run over the deceased. D.W. 2 Dhanraj Singh was related to Preetam Singh and so also the deceased. This witness was, therefore, rightly not believed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. From the evidence on record, it is fully borne out that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor which resulted in death of Bhujbal Singh. As regards the amount of compensation, PW 5 Imrat Singh, father of the deceased, deposed before the Tribunal that deceased was 21 years old and used to work in agricultural field and earn a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has observed that this must be the gross income and only the contribution of the deceased was relevant for the purpose of income. The Tribunal, therefore, found that from the evidence, it could be said that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and spendingRs. 1,000/- on himself and thus contributing Rs. 12,000/- per annum to his parents. The Tribunal has, therefore, applied a multiplier of 10 and awarded a sum of Rs.l,20,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- and making contribution of Rs. 1,000/- to the family. Learned counsel for the Respondents has, on the contrary, submitted that since evidence was adduced to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Tribunal erred in holding that his income was Rs. 2,000/- per month. PW 5 Imrat Singh has deposed that he has 30-35 acres land and the deceased used to look after the same. He has denied the suggestion that he had only three acres land. The contribution of the deceased has, therefore, been rightly assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and contribution to the family as Rs. 2,000/- per month. PW 5 Imrat Singh has deposed that he has 30-35 acres land and the deceased used to look after the same. He has denied the suggestion that he had only three acres land. The contribution of the deceased has, therefore, been rightly assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and contribution to the family as Rs. 1,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that at the most 1/3rd amount could have been deducted on account of personal expenses. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents deserves to be accepted. 1/3rd amount of Rs. 2,000/- comes to Rs. 666/- i.e. approximately Rs. 700/- with the result, the contribution of the family was Rs. 1,300/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 10 the total compensation to be awarded comes to Rs. 1,56,000/-. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed. The appellants (non-applicants) are directed to pay Rs.1,56,000/- to the applicants with interest @ 12% from the date of application. The parties are left to bear their respective costs of this appeal.