Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1269 (MP)

Manju Bai v. Sheikh Saleem

2005-12-12

S.C.VYAS

body2005
JUDGMENT This is an appeal for enhancement of payment of compensation award by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 251/03 by award dated 17.8.2004. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 2,37,000/- along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of application. Appellant No.2 is the wife of deceased Chhaganlal whereas Appellant No.2, 3 and 4 are daughters and Appellant No.5 Mukesh is son of the deceased. Appel1ants No.6 and 7 are father and mother of the deceased. The facts of the case are that on 18.3.2003 deceased Jagdeesh along with his brother-in-law Chhagan was going on a motor cycle bearing No. 09/JT/2218 towards his village when they reached near Khudel by-pass then respondent No.2 came driving truck bearing No. M.P. 09-KA-4486 rashly and negligently from wrong side and dashed to the vehicle of the deceased Chhagan. Jagdeesh and Chhagan both died on the spot due to this motor accident. The incident was reported to police station Khudel, District-Indore on the same date. It has been evened in the claim petition that deceased Chhaganlal was running a tea stall in Peethampur and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from his tea shop. He was aged about 30 years, therefore, claimants submitted claim petition for seeking an award of Rs. 15 lacs before learned Tribunal. Respondents No. 1 and 2, Sheikh Saleem and Harisingh driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained absent on service of notice and they proceeded ex parte. However, Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company controverter the submissions made in the claim petition and contended that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the motor cycle are also necessary party and so the claim petition suffers with a defect of none implication of necessary party. It is also being averred that respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective driving licence. On the date of incident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. After recording the evidence of both the parties learned Tribunal held that truck bearing No. M.P. 09 KA 4486 was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in death of Jagdeesh and Chhaganlal. It was found not proved that respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective licence or that the driver of the motorcycle was also negligent at the time of the incident. The income of the deceased assessed as Rs. It was found not proved that respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective licence or that the driver of the motorcycle was also negligent at the time of the incident. The income of the deceased assessed as Rs. 1,500/- per month i.e. 18,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 16 and awarding other amount the total amount of Rs. 2,37,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. In this appeal, the factum of accident and negligence of respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle M.P. 09KA 4486 has not been chal1enged by any party. Only ground raised by the appellant is regarding quantum of compensation. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is much inadequate and requires enhancement. It has been submitted that the deceased was running tea stall and his income has been proved by leading oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence led by the appellant the income of the deceased ought to have been held proved as Rs. 5,00/- per month, but the learned Tribunal without any basis assessed the income as Rs. 1,500/- per month. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal has chosen wrong multiplier. Looking to the age of the deceased and age of respondent No.1 proper multiplier have not been used. Therefore, he has submitted that applying the multiplier of 18 and assessing the income as Rs. 5,000/- per month compensation be awarded. Per contra Shri Goyal learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the award passed by learned Tribunal and has submitted that there is no proof of any income of the deceased on the basis of which income can be assessed as Rs. 5,000/- per month. He has submitted that no accounts of the tea stall have been submitted by the appellant before the Tribunal not even a Registration Certificate of that shop under Shops and Establishment Act. So if for want of these documents learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of deceased of Rs. 1.500/- per month then such assessment of income does not require any interference in this appeal. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the learned Tribunal I am of the view that the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced. 1.500/- per month then such assessment of income does not require any interference in this appeal. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the learned Tribunal I am of the view that the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced. All seven persons who are appellants in this appeal, were claimants before the learned Tribunal. It appears to be a large family having old parents, young wife and 4 children. Manju Bai Claimant No. 1 has stated that the entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased and there was no other source of income in the family. When the deceased was running tea shop then monthly income for maintaining such large family should be more than 1,500/per month, may not be Rs. 5.000/- per month, but looking to the number of persons dependent upon the deceased it appears reasonable that the income of the deceased should be assessed as Rs. 2,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 30 years, looking to his age the suitable multiplier is 17. Total income of the deceased was Rs. 24,000/- per annum out of which 1/3 must have been spent by him on himself therefore dependency of the claimants on the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 16.000/ - per annum. Applying multiplier of 17 amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 2,72,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- were awarded by learned Tribunal on other heads which appears reasonable and adding that amount the total amount of compensation is Rs. 3,07,000/- which ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The amount of compensation as payable by the respondents jointly or severally is enhanced from Rs. 2,37,000/- to Rs. 3,07,000/-. The appellants will be entitled to an interest of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application, other directions given by the learned Tribunal in the award will remain the same. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.