Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

Shakuntalabai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2003-07-11

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
Judgment Verma and Seth, JJ. ( 1. ) Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. S.V. Dandvate, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; none for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They are heard on LA. No. 1233 of 2003. This is an application for deleting the name of appellant No. 2 Nathu, who is alleged to have died on 9.11.2002 during the pendency of the appeal. Along with the application, death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Ambasoti, has been filed. The application is considered. The legal representatives of the deceased appellant No. 2 Nathu are already on record, hence the death of appellant No. 2 has no adverse effect on the appeal. The application is allowed and the same stands closed. The learned counsel for the appellants directed to delete the name of appellant No. 2 from the cause title. ( 2. ) With consent arguments heard. For the death of one Ramsingh, the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi (Dhar) in Claim Case No. 62 of 1999, decided on 16.1.2000, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to the appellants, who are the widow, children and mother of the deceased. On account of a road accident, which took place on 8.5.1999, Ramsingh died when the passenger bus bearing registration No. MP 09-GB 0023, hit the motor cycle, which the deceased was driving. As a result of the impact, the deceased died on the spot. ( 3. ) The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence, found that the respondent No. 2 Babbu was responsible for causing the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal also found that on the date of the accident respondent No. 3 was the registered owner of the bus and the same was insured with respondent No. 1. This finding of the Tribunal has not been assailed before us, therefore, the same is maintained. The Tribunal also found that the deceased was working as a teacher in a Government school and was of the age of 45 years. The deceased was drawing the monthly salary of Rs. 6,666. The Tribunal worked out the annual loss of dependency of the appellants at Rs. 53,328 and applying multiplier of 13, the Claims Tribunal assessed the future loss of dependency at Rs. 6,93,264. The deceased was drawing the monthly salary of Rs. 6,666. The Tribunal worked out the annual loss of dependency of the appellants at Rs. 53,328 and applying multiplier of 13, the Claims Tribunal assessed the future loss of dependency at Rs. 6,93,264. But instead of awarding this amount the Tribunal held that looking to the standard of living and the profession which the deceased was carrying on, it would not be proper or justified to award a lump sum of Rs. 6,93,264 to appellants and, therefore, reduced it to Rs. 3,50,000. ( 4. ) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased, which is contrary to the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, which was filed by the appellant, after closer of the evidence. The so-called School Leaving Certificate has not been proved in accordance with law. Assuming for the sake of argument that School Leaving Certificate can be taken into account, still the court has discretion to apply the multiplier, in view of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 years, holding that the deceased had crossed the age of 45 years. In our opinion, the Tribunal did not err or went wrong in applying the multiplier of 13 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, we find that the Tribunal committed an error in reducing the amount of future loss of dependency on unsustainable grounds and reasonings. The future loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 6,93,264 and the appellants are entitled to recover the same from the respondents. We also find that Claims Tribunal did not award any compensation on other heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, love and affection, company, etc. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards these heads would meet the ends of justice. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that in the accident, the motor cycle, which the deceased was driving was completely damaged and nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal on that count. We allow total sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages towards the loss of motor cycle. Thus, the total amount, which the appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally comes to Rs. 7,13,264. We allow total sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages towards the loss of motor cycle. Thus, the total amount, which the appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally comes to Rs. 7,13,264. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the date of the application till it is actually paid by the respondents. ( 6. ) The appeal is thus partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above. The respondent No. 1 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsels fees Rs. 1,000.00, if certified. Appeal partly allowed.