Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 667 (MP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kalloo Bai.

2004-08-16

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) SINCE the matter was listed for LA. No. 2087/2004 for urgent hearing filed by the learned Counsel for respondents, the matter was finally heard with the consent of the parties, ( 2. ) THIS appeal has been filed by the insurer and insured, both, against the award dated 10-5-99 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhnadon, passed in M. C. C. No. 5/98, by which the said Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,51,000/- to the respondents on account of the death of Hem Singh, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in a motor accident. ( 3. ) AS per the case set up by the respondents before the Tribunal in their application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on 15-3-98 at about 1:00 P. M. the vehicle truck bearing registration No. MP-20-G/0277 driven by Komal Rajak (respondent No. 4) which was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (appellant No. 1 herein), on account of rash and negligent driving, knocked the deceased Hem Singh. He was rushed to the hospital but within three or four hours he succumbed to the injuries. On account of his death, a sum of Rs. 13,08,000/- was claimed as compensation, as against which the amount of Rs. 6,51,000/- has been awarded. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle, both have filed this appeal. ( 4. ) SINCE only the quantum of compensation is basically under challenge, the joining of the insured as appellant notwithstanding, we would have insisted on the withdrawal of the Insurance Company but for the abnormal and unconscionable compensation awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month as stated, from the vending of the milk and, secondly, the multiplier of 32 applied on the basis of the assessment of the remaining age of the deceased was unthinkably high. He has further submitted that the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the maximum multiplier of 18 and the said Schedule serves for guidance even in matter pertaining to awards under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has further submitted that the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the maximum multiplier of 18 and the said Schedule serves for guidance even in matter pertaining to awards under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel for the respondents Shri A. D. Mishra, per contra, has submitted that since the deceased had income from the sale of milk of which cogent evidence was available on record, the Tribunal did not, in any manner err in holding his income as Rs. 3,000/- per month and computing the compensation on that basis. With regard to the multiplier, his submission is that since the deceased would at least have lived upto the age of 60 years, the balance period has rightly been taken into account for determination of the compensation. ( 6. ) WE have gone through the evidence and considered the submission of the learned Counsel. In the evidence the respondent No. 1 has clearly admitted in Para 13 that the deceased was a holder of a card below the poverty line which shows that his income could not have been Rs. 3,000/as stated. In fact, for such a card holder the income has to be much below the income claimed in the petition. Since no sanctity can be attached to the statement with regard to the income of the deceased, we are left with no choice but to seek support of the Second Schedule under Section 163-A with regard to the notional income and, accordingly, we hold that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum out of which deducting one third for his personal expenses, the annual dependency of the respondents, his wife, child and mother comes to Rs. 10,000/ -. To this annual dependency, if the highest multiplier of 18 is applied, the sum arrived at will be Rs. 1,80,000/ -. In the case of death, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- for the loss of estate. Thus, the respondents arc entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,89,500/ -. ( 7. ) THUS, this appeal partly succeeds. The amount of award is modified and it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled to receive from the present appellants a sum of Rs. 1,89,500/ -. 2,500/- for the loss of estate. Thus, the respondents arc entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,89,500/ -. ( 7. ) THUS, this appeal partly succeeds. The amount of award is modified and it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled to receive from the present appellants a sum of Rs. 1,89,500/ -. They shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application, till payment of the amount. The compensation shall be distributed to the claimants in the manner laid down in the award of the Tribunal in the same proportion. The Insurance Company is granted two months time to deposit the remaining amount as per the award. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.