Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1183 (MP)

Ghuraua v. MPSRTC

2005-11-22

A.K.MISHRA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2005
ORDER Dwivedi, J. -- 1. The appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as Motor Vehicle Act for brevity). Feeling aggrieved by an award dated 20.1.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi, in motor claim case No. 51/91 whereby the claims tribunal had awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- together with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this claim petition till the date of realization in favour of the appellants against the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 11.6.1991 at about 6.45 p.m. deceased Premlal aged about 41 years was going to his village Padkhuri from district headquarter Sidhi on his motor cycle No. M.P. 17/2965 when he reached near Barorha on that spot one M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bus No. M.K.H. 7534 which had been driven by respondent No.3 rash and negligently, dashed the motor cycle of deceased Premlal thereby deceased Premlal sustained grievous injury on his head and various parts of his body, due to grievous injury the deceased died on the spot itself. Police Churhat had registered a criminal case against the driver respondent No.3, under sections 304-A IPC. The concerning bus belonging to the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was attached with its Shahdol Depot. The appellants who is the wife of the deceased Premlal and appellants No.2 and 3 are the minor sons of the deceased Premlal. Deceased was a contractor and also an agriculturist thereby earning 24,000/- per annum as agricultural income and Rs.15,000/- per annum earning from contractorship. By this income he was maintaining his family. On these allegations the appellants had filed a claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Claims Tribunal at Sidhi claiming compensation amount of Rs.6,30,000/- from the respondents. The learned claims tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record awarded the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-only in favour of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid quantum of compensation amount the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 has supp6rted the impugned award and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. Arguments heard record perused. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid quantum of compensation amount the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 has supp6rted the impugned award and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. Arguments heard record perused. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned claims tribunal has erred in calculating the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- only for the death of the deceased Premlal. Therefore, prayed for the just and reasonable enhancement of compensation amount in this case. 6. In reply the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 submits that in view of the evidence on record the learned claims tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion for the compensation amount, therefore, no interference is called for in this findings. 7. Both the parties have not assailed the finding with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.3 the driver of the Bus. On perusal of the evidence on record it is also proved on the basis of the documentary evidence the spot map exhibit P-2 and the First Information Report Exhibit P-l it is found proved that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus concerned by the respondent No.3. It is true the claimants Ghuraua (CW 1) is not present at the time of this accident. Naturally she was not the eye witness of this accident. Therefore, on the basis of the documentary evidence the learned claims tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving concerning bus by the respondent No.3 and we affirm the aforesaid finding of the learned claims tribunal. 8. The next point for consideration before us as to what should be the just and reasonable compensation amount which the appellants are entitled to get from the respondents. 9. For this aspects the claimants Ghuraua Bai CW-1 who is the wife of the deceased Premlal stated before the Claims Tribunal that her husband is an agriculturist and also doing business of contractorship and was earning Rs. 39,000/- per annum and he was giving Rs. 2,000/- as the expenses for maintenance of home. In view of the statement of the claimants Ghuraua Bai we assessed the annual income of the deceased Premlal at Rs. 39,000/- per annum and he was giving Rs. 2,000/- as the expenses for maintenance of home. In view of the statement of the claimants Ghuraua Bai we assessed the annual income of the deceased Premlal at Rs. 30,000/-per annum out of which 1/3 amount of Rs. 10,000/- may be deducted as the expenses of deceased himself thereby the annual dependency of the claimants come to Rs. 20,000/-. Deceased Premlal was aged about 41 years at the time of this accident. Therefore, as per the provisions of II. Schedule of section l63A of the M.V. Act the multiplier of 15 may b applied. Thereby the total earning loss would be Rs. 20,000x 15=3,00,000/ -. In addition to aforesaid amount the appellants are also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- as the funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- as the loss of estate, Rs. 2,000/- as the loss of expectancy of life. In addition to that the appellants Ghuraua Bai, who is the wife of the deceased Premlal, is further entitle to get Rs. 5,000/- as loss of the consortium. Thus, the total compensation amount will come to Rs. 3,11,500/- which appears to be just and reasonable compensation amount which the appellants are entitled to get from the respondents. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed, and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified and it is held that the appellants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.3,11,500/- from the respondents jointly and severally together with the interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition from i.e. 24.10.1991 till the date of realization. 11. Looking to the circumstances of this case parties to bear their own costs. Counsel fees of Rs.1,000/- if certified.