Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 813 (MP)

Kiran Devi v. Karan Singh

2002-08-27

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, R.B.DIXIT

body2002
JUDGMENT Chandresh Bhushan, J. -- This is an appeal preferred by the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased Subhash Sharma, who died in an accident involving motor vehicle. The appeal has been preferred against the award dated 6.12.1996 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gohad, wherein a sum of Rs. 1,54,129/- has only been awarded under various heads to the claimants who were the widow and parents of the deceased, Subhash. It is not disputed that the deceased who was travailing on a motor-cycle on the date of accident, i.e. on 18.9.1995 collided with a Jeep driven by respondent No.2 and belonging to respondent No.1. As a result of which the deceased Subhash got seriously injured and ultimately died in the hospital on the same day. Thereafter, it claim petition was filed by his widow and parents. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing them, passed the impugned award. In the impugned award, learned Tribunal held the monthly income of the deceased Subhash to be only Rs. 1,000/- per month and after deducting his personal expenses of Rs. 300/- per month assumed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 700/- per month and applying the multiplier of 17 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,42,800/- towards loss of income. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that as per the evidence adduced by the claimants the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month and therefore the pendency ought to have been calculated at Rs. 1,300/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has not relied upon the testimony of claimants' witnesses Jagdish Prasad (PW 1 and Gangadas (PW 3) i.e. employer in this respect. Both of them had in their cross-examination admitted that the deceased was working in the expeller of Gangadas (PW 3) only since four months prior to the accident and Jagdish Prasad, the father of the deceased, further admitted that before that the deceased was getting only Rs. 500/- per month as his salary. Considering these admissions of the father of the deceased and the witness Gangadas, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved them as far as the monthly salary of the deceased was conceded. Further, in such a circumstance there was also no reason to conclude that his income was Rs. 1,000/- per month only. 500/- per month as his salary. Considering these admissions of the father of the deceased and the witness Gangadas, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved them as far as the monthly salary of the deceased was conceded. Further, in such a circumstance there was also no reason to conclude that his income was Rs. 1,000/- per month only. In such a situation guidance could be taken from the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum has been provided for those who had no income prior to the accident. Considering it together with the fact that the deceased had a motor-cycle on which he was traveling and was an intermediate passed young man it would be appropriate to presume that his annual income was at least Rs. 15,000/- per annum, and after deducting 1/3rd of it as his own expenses the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. A Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Kamlabai and others v. Shaikh Basir and others reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ SN 13, had also held that in a case in which evidence with respect to earnings of the deceased was not very exact, the total income could be presumed to be at Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum. therefore multiplier of 17 has to be applied in his case. Applying that multiplier of 17 to Rs. 10,000/- per annum, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 1,70,000/- instead of Rs. 1,42,800/-. Therefore, as far as the loss of income of claimants is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced by Rs. 27,200/- As far as award of compensation under other heads are concerned, the award seems to be reasonable and proper and, therefore is upheld. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 1,81,329/- from Rs. 1,54,129/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment on this enhanced amount of Rs. 27 ,200/-. On the remaining amount they shall be entitled to the interest as has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 1,81,329/- from Rs. 1,54,129/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment on this enhanced amount of Rs. 27 ,200/-. On the remaining amount they shall be entitled to the interest as has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Out of this amount of total compensation including the interest the appellant's No. 2 and 3 shall be entitled to its 20% each, while the remaining 60% will be paid to appellant No.1, who is widow of the deceased. Parties to bear their own costs.