Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 892 (MP)

MISKAN BEE v. NARMADA BOREWELL

2003-07-25

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
VERMA SETH, J. ( 1 ) MR. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, none for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served and Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) WITH consent arguments heard. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. , shajapur in Claim Case No. 103 of 2002. ( 3 ) FOR the death of Makbul alias Kallu khan, Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dated 28. 9. 2002 has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,500 to claimants-appellants. Appellant No. 1 is the widow, appellant nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children and the appellant Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was only 26 years and he was working as a TV mechanic. It is alleged that the deceased used to earn rs. 3,300 per month. After analysing the evidence, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. TN 28-Y 8437, which was coming from the opposite direction, was responsible for causing the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving, which led to the untimely death of Makbul. This finding of the Tribunal is not assailed before us, therefore, the same is confirmed. ( 4 ) IT is also not disputed before us that the deceased was a young man, who was around 26 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18, which is applicable to the persons belonging to the age group of 25-30 years. The only contention urged before us by learned counsel for appellants is that the monthly income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs. 2,000 by the 847 tribunal to work out the loss of future dependency of the appellants. Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, submitted that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Mr. Goel submitted that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3, submitted that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Mr. Goel submitted that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000. Not only the widow of the deceased but the employer of the deceased Munshi Khan, AW 3, was examined to prove monthly income of the deceased. The salary certificate of the deceased, Exh. P-14 is already on record. No doubt it is on a plain paper without bearing any mono of the firm or the name of the employer. In the certificate, it has been mentioned that the deceased was getting rs. 3,300 per month as salary for doing the work of TV mechanic. The appellants are residents of Shajapur, which is not a very big town. In our considered opinion, the deceased must have been getting Rs. 3,000 in a month as salary. After deducting usual '/3rd amount which the deceased must have been spending on himself, the monthly dependency of the appellants comes to rs. 2,000 and annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000. Applying the multiplier of 18, the future loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 4,32,000. To this we add a sum of Rs. 18,000 towards compensation on other heads like for loss of consortium, loss of company, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally a sum of rs. 4,50,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the application till it is actually paid. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The respondent No. 3 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .