Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 58 (MP)

Padma Khatwani v. Habib Ullah

2003-01-09

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT Singh C.J. -- This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni, in MACT No. 18/98, dated 28.1.2000. The claimants are wife and daughter of late Harish Khatwani, who died in the motor accident on 1.6.1997 when he was going to Rewa by Jeep No. MP 17 A-3222 and truck No. MCY 2634 owned and driven by Habib Ullah (respondent 1), rashly and negligently, collided with it. The deceased suffered serious injuries. He was referred to Government Hospital, Rewa, then to Jabalpur, but he died due to fractures and head injuries. He was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was Manager in two General Stores owned by his brothers, earning Rs. 4100/- per month. Owner and driver did not contest the claim, therefore, proceeded ex parte. While the Insurance Company has stated that owner, driver and Insurance Company of the Jeep ought to have been impleaded party to the case and the drivers of the truck and jeep did not possess valid driving licence. On the pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal framed five issues and after recording of evidence, held that the accident took place as alleged. It rejected the defence put up by the Insurance Company and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum and counsel's fee of Rs. 1500/-. The Claimants have challenged the award through this appeal. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that just compensation has not been awarded in this case. This has happened because the Claims Tribunal neither applied proper multiplier nor assessed income of the deceased accurately on the basis of evidence in the case. The deceased was income tax payee and return for assessment year 1997-98 had been preferred by wife of the deceased. Both brothers of the deceased have stated that the deceased was Manager in two General Stores owned by them. He was being paid Rs. 4100/- per month from both the stores. Shri V.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2/Insurance Company, submits that the claimants have not furnished the income tax return of the deceased for the year 1996-97 and before, therefore, much reliance can be placed on the income tax return of 1997-98. He was being paid Rs. 4100/- per month from both the stores. Shri V.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 2/Insurance Company, submits that the claimants have not furnished the income tax return of the deceased for the year 1996-97 and before, therefore, much reliance can be placed on the income tax return of 1997-98. In case, the claimants possessed the income tax return, they could be filed and filing of the return for the year 1997-98, after death of the deceased, demonstrates that it has been filed with a view to seek more compensation. Giving consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where it can be said that the deceased falls under the category of non-earning member of the family. Both brothers have said that the deceased was Manager in two Stores owned by them and was being paid Rs. 4100/- per month, they have not produced any record showing that the deceased was being paid the amount. With this background, we have to fix the income of the deceased, who may be member of the joint hindu; family, but he had his wife, and a child to be born. Therefore, it cannot be said that he could manage the affairs of family with Rs. 1250/- per month. Therefore, it would be just and proper to fix the income at Rs. 3000/- per month after making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2000/- per month, yearly 'Rs. 24000/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was 25 year old, therefore, multiplier of 17 is applicable in this case. That apart Smt. Padma Khatwani is entitled to solatium of Rs. 5000/- besides both the claimants to Rs. 7000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2500/- loss to estate and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. The total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 4,24,500/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, award is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of ~s. 4,24,500/- (Rs. Four Lac Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only). Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 (nine) percent per annum from the date of application till payment. The compensation is distributed as under: (1) Smt. Padma Khatwani 60% (2) Ku. Bhavna 40% The compensation falling to the' share of Ku. Four Lac Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only). Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 (nine) percent per annum from the date of application till payment. The compensation is distributed as under: (1) Smt. Padma Khatwani 60% (2) Ku. Bhavna 40% The compensation falling to the' share of Ku. Bhavna be invested in fixed deposit with the Nationalised Bank in the name of Ku. Bhavna, through Smt. Padma Khatwani (mother), till she attains majority. Costs on parties.