Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 244 (MP)

Sushila v. Rajpal Singh

2005-02-15

DIPAK MISRA, R.V.RAVEENDRAN

body2005
JUDGMENT Raveendran, C.J. -- This is an appeal by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 8.10.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind, in Claim Case No. 67/1996. The claim petition was filed by this appellant who is widow of one Ravindra Singh, claiming a compensation of 14,00,000/- for the death of her husband in a motor accident involving truck bearing registration No. CIG 2252 on 6.5.1992. She stated that the deceased was aged 22 years. and had monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- as a mechanic. She examined herself, and also examined her father-in-law and the· employer in regard to income. An eye witness was also examined. The driver of the truck did not give any evidence. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held as follows: (a) the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Truck No. CIG 2252. (b) The deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. (c) The income of the deceased was Rs. 625/- per month (that in Rs.25/- per day for 25 days in a month) and the compensation payable is Rs. 95,068/-. (d) The owner and driver shall pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. Feeling aggrieved the claimant and the posthumous daughter of the deceased Ravindra Singh have filed this appeal. On the contentions urged by the appellants, "the following two points arise for determination: (a) Whether the insurer ought to have been made liable alongwith owner and driver of the vehicle. (b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low. Re. point (a) The evidence shows that the truck had been parked touching an electric pole. The deceased who was a passer by touched the door knob of the truck and was electrocuted. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle. On the other hand, it is clear that the accident occurred on account of the driver of the truck, parking the truck in such a negligent manner in a public place touching an electric pole with the result that anyone who touched the metallic part of the truck was electrocuted. On the other hand, it is clear that the accident occurred on account of the driver of the truck, parking the truck in such a negligent manner in a public place touching an electric pole with the result that anyone who touched the metallic part of the truck was electrocuted. The deceased was, therefore, a third party who died on account of the negligence of the driver and, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The first point is answered accordingly. Re. point (b) The evidence of the wife, father and the employer clearly show that deceased was a mechanic. Hence, even if the Tribunal did not believe that the income was Rs. 3,000/- per month in the absence of documentary evidence, it ought to have held that the income of the deceased was at least Rs. 1,250/- per month or Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Though, the accident occurred prior to insertion of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that Rs. 15,000/- per annum would be appropriate. On deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, we arrive at the contribution to the family as Rs. 10,000/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 22 years, the multiplier of 17, would be applicable. Therefore, total loss of dependency is determined at Rs. 1,70,000/-. In addition, we award Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,82,000/-. We accordingly allow this appeal in part as follows: (a) The compensation is increased from Rs. 95,068/- to 1,39,000/-. (b) While the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. (c) The driver, owner and insurer are made liable for the accident jointly and severally and the entire amount awarded shall be paid by the insurer (third party). (d) We apportion the, compensation as 70% for the widow and 30% for the minor daughter. (c) The driver, owner and insurer are made liable for the accident jointly and severally and the entire amount awarded shall be paid by the insurer (third party). (d) We apportion the, compensation as 70% for the widow and 30% for the minor daughter. The entire amount falling to the share of the minor (second appellant) and 60% of the share of widow (appellant No.1) shall be kept in fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank for five years each with a further renewal of five years with liberty to the first appellant to draw interest. (e) Parties to bear their respective costs.