Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 895 (MP)

Chetram v. Mewaldas and Company

2003-07-25

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
JUDGMENT This appeal for enhancement has been preferred by the aged parents and minor children of the deceased, who had died on 2.9.2000 in a road accident. The deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger in the bus bearing registration No. MP43/F-0011. At the time of accident, the bus was being driven by Poonamchand, who also died in the same accident. At the time of accident, the bus belonged to respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.2. The finding of the Tribunal, that deceased Poonamchand was responsible for causing the accident, is not assailed before us. Therefore, the same is confirmed. ' The only contention urged by learned counsel for appellants and respondent No.3 is, that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly on the lower side. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation to the respondent No.3, who was claimant No.1 before the Tribunal, on the ground, that after the accident and death of the deceased, she had remarried Balaram. Respondent No.3 has also preferred a cross-objection against the said finding of the Tribunal and claimed that she is also entitled to receive the amount of compensation alongwith the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for appellants did not dispute the legal entitlement of respond('l1t No.3 to receive the compensation, as on the date of accident and when the deceased died, she was legally married wife of the deceased. The only contention of learned counsel for appellants is that since respondent No. 3 has already remarried and the grand parents are looking after minor children of the deceased, respondent No.3 should not be given a lions share. Learned counsel for appellants places reliance on two judgments, reported in 1986 ACJ 219 (Raj.) and 1999 ACJ 187 (MP). , The later decision is of a Division Bench of this Court, wherein, it has been held that a widow, who, later on remarried, is entitled to receive some amount of compensation, but, the amount should not be the same, as is given to widow, who does not remarry. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the confession given by learned counsel for appellants, we hold that respondent No.3 is also entitled to receive the amount of compensation. How much she will get, is decided later on. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the confession given by learned counsel for appellants, we hold that respondent No.3 is also entitled to receive the amount of compensation. How much she will get, is decided later on. Thus, the cross-objection filed by respondent No.3 is allowed. Learned counsel for appellants and respondent No.3 submitted that the amount of compensation is not just and proper. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted, that in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income to work out the loss of future dependency and applying the correct multiplier, has awarded the amount of compensation to the appellants. After going through the evidence on record, we find, that appellants have not led any reliable evidence so as to come to the definite finding with regard to monthly income of the deceased. In absence of such evidence, we take Rs. 15,000/- as notional annual income of the deceased and after deducting usual conventional 1/3rd amount, the loss of dependency of the appellants including respondent No.3, comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of deceased, in our considered opinion, multiplier of 18 should be applied. Thus, the future loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. To this, we add a sum of Rs. 20,000/as compensation on other heads, like loss of consortium, loss of company, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs jointly and severally from respondents No.1 and 2. Out of the amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs, Rs. 1.00 lac together with proportionate interest shall be kept in joint FDR in the name of appellants No.1 and 2 till they attain majority. Out of the remaining amount, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid in cash together with proportionate interest to appellant No.3 and 4. The remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with proportionate interest shall be paid to respondent No.3. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application tin it is actually paid to the appellants and respondent No.3. The interest accrued on the FDR would be payable to appellants No.3 and 4 for proper up-keep of appe11ants No.1 and 2. Thus, the cross-objection is allowed. The appeal is partly allowed. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application tin it is actually paid to the appellants and respondent No.3. The interest accrued on the FDR would be payable to appellants No.3 and 4 for proper up-keep of appe11ants No.1 and 2. Thus, the cross-objection is allowed. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. The respondent No.2 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-, if, certified.