Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 730 (MP)

Phoolwati v. Bharat Singh through L. Rs.

2003-05-15

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, S.S.JHA

body2003
JUDGMENT Jha, J. -- This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Contention of the counsel for appellants is that compensation of Rs. 95, 000/- is on much lesser side. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident and he was having income of Rs. 3,500/- per month. Tribunal has gravely erred in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 750/per month. He also submitted that the multiplier of 13 has wrongly been applied and multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. We have heard the counsel for the parties. According to claimants, on 4.8.1992 at about 7.30 in the evening, tractor with trolley bearing registration No. CPG-2972 was driven in a rash and negligent manner on Morena-Ambah road. Another jeep in which deceased Gulab Singh Tomer was travelling bearing registration No. MPZ-9859, which was going towards Morena, collided with the tractor which resulted into death of Gulab Singh. We have gone through the evidence on record. PW 1, Yogendra Singh had deposed in para 1 of his statement that the accident occurred on account of negligence of both the vehicles and on this point, there is no cross-examination by the respondents that offending jeep was not at fault. Similarly, PW 2 Ashok Singh, had also deposed that both the vehicles were being driven in a rash and negligent manner. There is no cross-examination on this point. We have perused the evidence of the driver of the jeep, Narottam, N.A.W. 1. This witness is not at all reliable. He had denied that the deceased was travelling in the jeep though this fact is admitted in the written-statement. He had deposed that he had seen that the offending tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and driver of the tractor was driving the tractor in a zig zag manner and on account of negligence of the tractor driver, chain of the trolley connected with the tractor had collided with the jeep, whereas he has admitted that after the accident seizure-memo was prepared and broken spring leaf was also seized by the police, which is shown in Ex. P/6. He has deposed that he was driving the jeep on a highway at the speed of 10-15 K.M. per hour. This witness is not at all reliable. P/6. He has deposed that he was driving the jeep on a highway at the speed of 10-15 K.M. per hour. This witness is not at all reliable. Breaking of spring leaf and the spot map prepared by the police immediately after the incident and damages to jeep such as breaking of side glass and spring leaf demonstrates that the jeep was driven in a high speed, which has collided with the tractor. Considering the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that both the vehicles were being driven in a rash and negligent manner and owner and driver of both the vehicles are equally responsible for their negligence. As regards quantum of compensation is concerned, the evidence regarding income of the deceased has been disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal. We have gone through the evidence and we agree with the Claims Tribunal that there is no cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased. In the said facts of the case, notional income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, out of which Rs. 10,000/- can safely be determined towards dependency. Since deceased was 45 years of age, multiplier of 15 is applied to Rs. 10,000/-, which comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-. To this amount further amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be added under various heads for mental agony, loss of estate and funeral expenses, etc. Thus, claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,70,000/- and in this case of composite negligence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs. 75,000/-, from the date of application. The amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit and interest shall be paid to the claimants. As regards payment of amount from the fixed deposit is concerned, claimants can apply before the Claims Tribunal showing their need and if the Claims Tribunal IS satisfied that the need of claimants is genuine and necessary for the purpose such as marriage or other auspicious occasions or any other reason, it may release the required amount, for that purpose. Tribunal shall decide the case on it's merits on receiving the application from the claimants, otherwise the amount shall remain deposited in the fixed deposit till the life time of appellant No.1 Phoolvati. Tribunal shall decide the case on it's merits on receiving the application from the claimants, otherwise the amount shall remain deposited in the fixed deposit till the life time of appellant No.1 Phoolvati. Appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. Counsel fee as per schedule.