Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 897 (MP)

Miskan Miskanbee v. Narmada Borewell

2003-07-25

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
JUDGMENT Verma, J. -- Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants; None for respondent No. 1 and 2 though served and Shri Anil Goel, learned counsel for respondent No.3. With consent arguments heard. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 103/02. For the death of Makbul @ Kallu Khan, the Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dated 28th September, 2002 has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,500/- to the claimants-appellants. Appellant No.1 is the widow, appellants No.2 to 4 are the minor children and appellants No.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 T.V. 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 deaths of Makbul. This finding of the tribunal is not assailed before us, therefore, the same is confirmed. 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 25-30 years. The only contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the monthly income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs. 2000/- by the tribunal to work out the loss of future dependency of the appellants. Shri Anil Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that in 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. Shri Goel submitted that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. After hearing 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. Shri Goel submitted that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. After hearing 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. 2000/- Not only the widow of then deceased but the employer of the deceased Munshi Khan (A W 3) was examined to prove monthly income of the deceased. The salary certificate of the deceased (Ex. 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 the salary for doing the work of T.V. Mechanic. The appellants are the resident 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 1I3rd amount, which the deceased must have been spending on himself, the monthly dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 2,000 and the 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 loss of consortium, loss of company, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. Thus, the appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. 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 through out. Counsel's fees Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.