Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 992 (MP)

Vimla Bai Verma v. Munne Khan

2005-09-16

S.K.PANDE, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2005
JUDGMENT Ms. Waghmare, J. -- This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement arising out of award dated 16.1.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisen in Motor Claim Case No. 24/2000. The brief facts of the case are that on the alleged date of accident that is 5.7.2000 at 9: 10 p.m. approximately on the National Highway No. 12 near Bareli Settlement half a furlong from the Police Station, Bareli, the accident occurred and was reported at 9:30 p.m. at the said Police Station that deceased Phul Chand Venna was returning home after taking darshan at the Kali Mandir at Bareli when the alleged bus bearing No. MP04/F0252 belonging to non-applicant No.2 Shivlal Soni being rashly and negligently driven by Munne Khan, non-applicant No.1, dashed against him and crushed his legs. The driver absconded and the matter being reported to the Police Station Bareli. Crime was registered at No. 170/ 2000 under section 279,357,404 (A) of the IPC against the non-applicants No.1 and 2. The injured Phul Chand Verma was taken to the Bareli Hospital and was referred to Hamidia Hospital at Bhopal and on being admitted to Hamidia Hospital died due to excessive bleeding. The claimants who are widow and children of the deceased filed claim before the Tribunal stating that Phul Chand Verma was a Head Master in the Government Middle School at Khargone and earning salary of Rs. 8,580/- per month and under various heads claimed a total of Rs. 11,00,000/- as compensation. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 filed reply stating that the cleaner was reversing the bus whereas deceased who was drunk suddenly came behind the bus and was crushed underneath it due to his own negligence. That applicants No.2, 3 and 4 were majors and not eligible for compensation and since the bus was insured with non-applicant No.3 they were not liable to pay the compensation. Non-applicant No.3 resisted the claim on the ground by denying all the allegations and stating that the deceased had himself come behind the bus and the driver was unable to control the same on the inclined road besides the non-applicant No.1 did not possess a driving licence and the respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was not liable to pay the compensation. Ltd. was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the non-applicant No. 1 was responsible for causing the accident by driving the bus rashly and negligently and that all the non-applicants were liable to pay the compensation which was assessed at Rs. 91,825/- on considering the evidence to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. The assail to the award by the claimants pertains only to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The liability of the Insurance Company has not been challenged or appealed against and has thus become final. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the sum awarded is quite low and meager under the circumstances and the Tribunal has erred in assessing the dependency since the deceased was a Head Master of a Government School and his salary has been certified by the last salary certificate Ex. P-10. It is also submitted that on the basis of the documentary evidence the deceased was 61 years of age and according to the provisions of Schedule II of section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after deducting 1/3rd of the salary that the deceased was earning as amount spent on himself the sum would be Rs. 5,980/- and the annual income would be Rs. 5,980/- x 12 = Rs. 71,760/- which has not been disputed. The multiplier used however should have been 5 under the circumstances according to the schedule. The Tribunal has erred in computing the income by stating that since the deceased was to retire on 31.7.2001 the computation of dependency would be on the basis of the pension that was to be received by the deceased and the appellants/claimants contention that this is contrary to the provisions of law and hence the compensation needs to be enhanced. The counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand has opposed the enhancement claiming that the Tribunal could not have awarded more than the income the deceased would have earned, if alive and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency and needs no interference. Considering the submissions and material on record and on scrutinising the award we find that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 91,825/- which is quite low and meager under the circumstances. The Tribunal has also erred in deciding the dependency. Considering the submissions and material on record and on scrutinising the award we find that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 91,825/- which is quite low and meager under the circumstances. The Tribunal has also erred in deciding the dependency. Considering that the deceased must have earned Rs. 71,760/- per annum for only one year as he was to retire after one year from the date of accident the amount of pension was declared to be Rs. 4,589/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd the amount would come to Rs. 3,059/-. However, the claimants were entitled to a pension of Rs. 3,250/- upto 6.7.2004 as per the records. Therefore, the widow would receive pension of Rs. 1089/- after three years and Rs. 13,068/- per annum after three years. The Tribunal has granted only Rs. 13,068/- for one year since that would be the amount she stands to loose due to the premature death of the husband at the age of 61 years whereas it is settled law that compensation ought not to be deducted at the time of computation of the dependency and hence reassessing the compensation for payment of just and equitable compensation the amount is calculated thus Rs. 1089/- x 12 = Rs. 13,068 x 5 since 5 is the appropriate multiplier prescribed under Schedule II of the section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 = Rs. 1,37,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium amounting to Rs. 9,500/- shall make it Rs. 1,46,000/- rounding of the amount to Rs. 1,50,000/- would be just and proper compensation under the circumstances. Thus, the award is modified to the extent that the total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid to the appellants/claimants with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application on the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this award by the Insurance Company after adjustment of any amounts if already paid to the claimants. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to costs.