Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 603 (MP)

Dilip Kumar v. Rajesh Agrawal

2005-05-10

DIPAK MISRA, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2005
JUDGMENT The claimants/appellants were the wife and minor children of the deceased late Shri Kumar Gupta have called in question the legal validity of the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Shahdol (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/-. as against this the claim put forth by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 25,76.000/-. The facts that have given rise to the institution of the claim case are that while the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle. a truck bearing registration No. MKJ 9737. being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No. I. dashed against it as a consequence of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants tiled the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation on the foundation that the deceased was getting Rs. 80,000/- from agricultural income and Rs. 36.000/- from the hire charges of the tractor. The Tribunal considering the material on record granted a lump-sum amount of Rs. 95,000/- towards compensation on various heads. It is submitted by Mr. Anil Lala learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in law by not adverting to the claims put forth by the claimants and has arrived at the conclusion as regards the income and contribution of the deceased in an illegal manner. Per contra, it is urged by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer that the deceased had not owned any tractor and after his death there has been not much loss of income. On a perusal of the award we find that there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Lala that the deceased had owned a tractor. Ordinarily we would have remitted the matter to the Tribunal but we have thought it proper to decide the case so that the controversy is put to rest. On a studied scrutiny it is seen that no document has been brought on record showing that the deceased had owned any tractor. In view of the aforesaid the income obtained from the tractor cannot be given credence. As far as the agricultural income is concerned, the loss would be computed on the back drop of supervision and the labour put by the deceased. In view of the aforesaid the income obtained from the tractor cannot be given credence. As far as the agricultural income is concerned, the loss would be computed on the back drop of supervision and the labour put by the deceased. In view of the aforesaid we are inclined to say instead of notional income there should have been a determined income which we arc inclined to think would be Rs. 20.000/- per year. We are disposed to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion inasmuch as the deceased had five minor children and the wife to look after and individually he had been working hard and his supervision and participation has to be computed on monetary terms. As the family was large we are persuaded to think that the deceased could not have been in a position to spend 1/3rd on himself. In view of the aforesaid we think it condign to fix the yearly contribution at Rs. 15000/-. As the deceased was 45 years the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Thus, the compensation on this score would be Rs. 15.000/- x 15 = Rs. 2,25,000/-. To the aforesaid amount a sum of Rs. 9,500/- is to be added toward loss of consortium loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in toto the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 2.34.500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 95.000/- and the sum has been deposited with interest. In view of the aforesaid we are inclined to direct the enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the award. The said amount shall be computed and he deposited before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the present order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The directions given by the Tribunal keeping in view the law laid down in the case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others would also apply to the enhanced sum. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicted above. There shall be no order as to costs.