Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1078 (MP)

Keemat Rai Nagdeo v. Abdul Abrar

2003-09-11

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Kulshrestha, J. -- Being dis-satisfied by the amount awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal by award dated 16th November, 2000 passed in MCC No. 418/99 the appel1ants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to seek enhancement of the amount of compensation. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Mohan while No.3 and No.4 are his brother and sister. On 7.5.1999 while deceased Mohan was going on his scooter bearing Registration No. M.P.-04/H-6028 near Panchvati Complex, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, he was hit by the Jeep bearing registration No. MP-05/W-0230 which came at an excessive speed as a result of which, Mohan died on the spot. He was taken to Kasturba Hospital, where he was declared dead. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Piplani where offence under section 304-A of the IPC was registered vide Crime No. 129/99. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 56,45,000/- on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month out of which he was spending Rs. 2,000/- on himself and rest of the amount he was contributing to the family. The claim was resisted by the respondents who contended that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for the accident. The Tribunal on appreciation of the rival contentions and the evidence brought on record found that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to receive compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2.000/- for last rites of the deceased from the respondents. The appellants have, therefore, filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that before the Tribunal evidence was led to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month from the shop, out of which Rs. 9,000/- he was contributing to the family, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. It has come in the evidence that the shop did not belong to the deceased but it belonged to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal on that basis has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. However, we find that as per the claim of the appellants, the income from the shop comes to Rs. It has come in the evidence that the shop did not belong to the deceased but it belonged to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal on that basis has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. However, we find that as per the claim of the appellants, the income from the shop comes to Rs. 9,000/- per month. Although the claimants did not bring on record any documentary proof to substantiate it but, even if, the said claim is taken as exaggerated, it can be safely assumed that the income from the shop must have been Rs. 3,000-4,000/- per month. In this view of the matter the income of the deceased can be assumed to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and thus his income can be taken as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Keeping the age of the claimant in mind, multiplier of 5 has rightly been applied by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Thus, the compensation to which the appellants would be entitled be Rs. 24,000-1/3rd amount x 5 = 80,000/The Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards last rites which is quite reasonable. Thus, in all the claimants No.1 and 2 would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 87,000/from the respondents. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to recover, jointly and severally, from the respondents a sum of Rs. 87,000/- and interest there on @ 12% from the date of the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.