Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1071 (MP)

Gabbar Singh v. Mahesh Koli

2006-09-07

RAJENDRA MENON

body2006
ORDER 1. This is claimants appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 15 of 2004 vide award dated 30th June 2004. It is the case of the claimants that because of the accident that took place on 17th October 2003 in the night at 8:00 son of the claimant. Ranjeet Singh suffered serious injury and died when tractor bearing No. MP07/HA4362 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 and owned by the respondent No.2, hit Ranjeet Singh. Because of the accident and death of their child, the claimants made a claim of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lacs only). The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and material that came on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim application till payment. 2. The claimants are parents of Ranjeet Singh and it is an admitted fact that the deceased Ranjeet Singh was aged 9 years. The Tribunal by taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- by assessing the dependency of the parents at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and after applying a multiplier of' 15' granted compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) and added to that a further sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, awarded the total amount of compensation Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only). 3. Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) awarded for death of a 9 years old boy to the parents is very much on the lower side. Inviting my attention to a judgment of the Division Bench in cases decided on 10th April, 2006 i.e. Smt. Uma Rathore and others v. Om Prakash and others (MA No. 25 of 2003) so also, MA No. 131 of 2003 & MA No. 132 of 2003, submitted that in all these cases for a boy of 4 years and a girl aged 5 years, only 1/3rd is deducted towards self-expenses and after assessing 2/3rd dependency award of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy thousand only) is granted in both the cases. Similarly, he has invited my attention to a judgment by another Division Bench in the case of Ram Kishore Dixit and others v. Ramcharan and others decided on 7th February 2006, and argued that the dependency should be calculated at the rate of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased and compensation should have been awarded. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in MA No. 108 of 2001 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkishore Tiwari and others) decided on 11th July 2006 a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of S. C. Mittal and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others [2006 ACJ 875] to argue that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. 4. However, refuting the aforesaid and placing reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Halki Bai and another v. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another [2004 (3) TAC 821], Shri Gajendragadkar argued that in this case, the Division Bench has held that when parents are dependents of the deceased, their dependency can be assessed at one-third of the income of the deceased. Accordingly, he submits that in view of the law laid down in the case of Halki Bai and another (supra), the dependency assessed by the Tribunal is proper. Thereafter, inviting my attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish [ (2001) 2 SCC 247 ], Shri Gajendragadkar submitted that there being conflicting view taken in the case of Halki Bai and another (supra) and Ram Kishore Dixit and others (supra), the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. He also invites my attention to another judgment of this Court in MA No. 242 of 2001 decided on 26th July 2006 (Narain Singh and another v. Sadhu Singh and others) wherein the dependency has been assessed at 50% by this Court. That apart, placing reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Parathsingh v. Sanjay Shanna [2003 (1) TAC 163 (M.P.)] submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. That apart, placing reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Parathsingh v. Sanjay Shanna [2003 (1) TAC 163 (M.P.)] submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. As far as age of the deceased being 9 years is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the applicability of the multiplier 15' and there is no dispute between the parties in assessing the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in accordance with Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The only dispute is as to whether the dependency of the parents should be calculated at one-third earning of the deceased or at two-third? 7. Even though, in the case of Halki Bai and another (supra) following an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Donta Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra and others [1999 ACJ 1400] a Division Bench of this Court has assessed the dependency at one-third as was done in the earlier case of Parathsingh (supra) but a subsequent Division Bench recently on 7th February 2006 in the case of Ramkishore Dixit and others (supra) considered the case of Donta Louis Machado (supra) so also Halki Bai and another (supra) and in paragraph 8 it was observed as under: "We have perused the decision of the Supreme Court in Donat Louis Machado (supra) and we find that in the said decision no general principle was laid down by the Supreme Court that in each and every case the loss of dependency of the parents should be worked out at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. The said decision therefore, does not lay down any binding law that the dependency will have to be worked out at 1/3rd income of the deceased in every case coming before the Court. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadha and others v. State of Bihar and others [2001 ACJ 1735], in every case it is the overall picture that matters and the Court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered...." 8. Thereafter, the Division Bench in the case of Ramkishore Dixit (supra), assessed dependency at two-third. Thereafter, the Division Bench in the case of Ramkishore Dixit (supra), assessed dependency at two-third. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court in MA No. 131 of 2003 and MA No. 132 of 2003 (supra) has applied the same formula in the case of death of 4 years child and a girl aged 5 years. It is, therefore, clear that in the subsequent judgments, various Division Benches of this Court have consistently taken a view that only one-third can be deducted towards self-expenses and loss of dependency was assessed at two-third. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Ramkishore Dixit (supra) as reproduced hereinabove, the argument advanced by Shri Gajendragadkar cannot be accepted. Once a subsequent Division Bench has considered the earlier decisions of the Division Benches and has taken a view which is followed consistently by the subsequently Division Benches, this Court is bound by the same. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be held that in assessing dependency of the appellants at one-third of the income of the deceased a illegality is committed by the Tribunal and to that extent the award has to be quashed. 9. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan [2005 ACJ 99 (SC)], in the present case, the award of compensation at Rs.80,000/- for the death of a 9 years old child is very much on the lower side. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of S.C. Mittal and others (supra) enhanced the compensation awarded for death of a child of 4 years from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,25,000/-. Similarly, this Court in MA No. 242 of 2001 (Narain Singh and others v. Sadhu Singh and others) had enhanced the compensation from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,27,500/- for death of a girl child aged four years. Keeping in view the aforesaid assessments made, the award of compensation of Rs.80,000/(Rupees eighty thousand only) to the claimants in this case is very much on the lower side. 10. Accordingly, the dependency for the appellants is assessed at two-third of the income of the deceased and the compensation is calculated taking the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/-, accordingly, the dependency comes to Rs.10,000/- and applying the multiplier of' 15', the compensation comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only). 10. Accordingly, the dependency for the appellants is assessed at two-third of the income of the deceased and the compensation is calculated taking the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/-, accordingly, the dependency comes to Rs.10,000/- and applying the multiplier of' 15', the compensation comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only). To this, a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards love and affection and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards funeral expenses are added. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty five thousand only). 11. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to a total compenation of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty five thousand only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till payment. 12. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid enhancement in compensation, without any order as to cost.