Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 117 (MP)

KAILASHIBAI v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

2003-01-20

A.K.GOHIL, DEEPAK VERMA

body2003
DEEPAK VERMA, A. K. GOHIL, JJ. ( 1 ) ACT, for enhancement of compensation, appellants-claimants have filed this ap- being aggrieved against the award dated peal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles 17. 3. 2001 passed by Second Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 34 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 13. 1. 2000 deceased Bhanwarnath, a pedlar, was going to village Chisauli which comes under the Police Station, Babina, District jhansi, on bicycle for selling blankets. He was on the left side of the road. One bus bearing registration No. UAI-702 which was being driven by the respondent No. 3 mumtaz Khan came and dashed the bicyclist. On account of this dash the bicyclist came under the bus and was crushed and died on spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station, Babina and thereafter a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the bus and the said bus was insured with respondent No. 1, insurance company. Claimant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos. 2 to 8, who are the minor sons and daughters of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at mandsaur. It was contended in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 32 years and was a pedlar doing the business of selling blankets on bicycle in the villages. He was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month from the said business. Therefore, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,78,000. Before the Tribunal, the matter was contested by the insurance company only. The insurance company had denied the claim and submitted that the driver of the bus was not having valid and effective licence of driving the vehicle. Therefore, he committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no. 3 driver and also found proved that the deceased Bhanwarnath died due to said accident and also found that he was earning rs. 1,500 per month and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,200 per month, that is, rs. 3 driver and also found proved that the deceased Bhanwarnath died due to said accident and also found that he was earning rs. 1,500 per month and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,200 per month, that is, rs. 14,400 per year and applied the multiplier of 15 and assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,16,000 and thereafter awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 for loss of consortium, love and affection; and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and thus awarded a total compensation of rs. 2,38,000 against which the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. S. V. Dandwate, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. None was present for the appellants-claimants as also for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 4 ) MR. Dandwate submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no case for enhancement. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income as well as dependency and has rightly applied multiplier of 15. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has considered and assessed the age of the deceased between 30 and 32 years. In the post-mortem report, exh. P-4, it was shown as 30 years. Therefore, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased between 30 and 32 years. The Tribunal has also assessed the income as Rs. 1,500 per month and the dependency as Rs. 1,200 per month and Rs. 14,400 per year. As per Second Schedule appended to section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, for a non-earning person the notional income to be taken into consideration is Rs. 15,000 per year. PW 1 Kailashibai, who is the wife of the deceased and PW 2 Pappulal, who was a fellow pedlar also involved in the business of selling blankets, have stated that deceased was earning more than Rs. 5,000 per month. But as pointed out by Mr. S. V. Dandwate that it was a seasonal business. Therefore, the income of Rs. 2,500 per month of the deceased can be held to be proper income which comes to Rs. 30,000 per year. After deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the amount of total dependency would come to Rs. 20,000 per year. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 which appears to be on lower side. Therefore, the income of Rs. 2,500 per month of the deceased can be held to be proper income which comes to Rs. 30,000 per year. After deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the amount of total dependency would come to Rs. 20,000 per year. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 which appears to be on lower side. Looking to the age of the deceased, as per Second Schedule the proper multiplier should be of 17. If the multiplier of 17 is applied, then the total compensation would come to Rs. 3,40,000. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a compensation of rs. 20,000 towards loss of consortium as well as loss of love and affection. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses which appears to be on lower side. The amount of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to rs. 5,000. ( 6 ) THUS, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of rs. 3,65,000 instead of Rs. 2,38,000. There is no dispute about the liability of the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to pay the same to the claimants with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition dated 17. 2,2000. Out of total amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 be paid to the appellant No. 1 and the rest amount be distributed amongst minor sons and daughters equally and be deposited in F. D. Rs. in a nationalised bank in their names till the age of their attaining majority. Claimant No. 1 and all the other claimants would be entitled for regular interest on the F. D. Rs. for their maintenance. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs. Record be returned. Appeal allowed. .