Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1367 (MP)

Shiv Dulari Devi v. Arjun Kewat

2006-12-02

DIPAK MISRA, S.C.SINHO

body2006
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants against the award dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Umaria (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.20/04. By impugned award the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- with 6-1/2% interest per annum to the claimants by way of compensation for death of Shiv Chander Mahto. 2. According to appellants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. Appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal. No other question is challenged, therefore, we have to decide only this thing whether there is any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if so to what extent. 3. We have heard Mr. R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Ku.Anjali Banerjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. We have gone through the record. This appeal has been filed for enhancement in the compensation, other terms as who was driving negligently the offending vehicle or who is liable for paying the compensation, these findings are recorded in favour of appellant by the Tribunal and none of these findings are under challenge either by cross appeal or by cross objection. Therefore, we do not wish to burden our judgment by dealing with these unnecessary issues. 5. In this context we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Jyoti Kaul and others v. State of M.P. and others [ 2000(2) JLJ 206 = (2002)6 SCC 306 ], wherein a two-Judge Bench of the apex Court after referring to the decisions rendered in the cases of G.M. Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [ (1994)2 SCC 176 ], Sneha Dutra v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation [ (1999)5 SCC 169 ], S. Chandra v. Pallavan Transport Corporation [ (1994)2 SCC 189 ], and Kusum Lata Trivedi v.State of M.P. [ (1992) 1 ACC 686 ], has held as under: "10. The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the principle of multiplier would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Looking to the facts of this case we find that the Tribunal has given good reasons for applying the multiplier of 15. The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the principle of multiplier would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Looking to the facts of this case we find that the Tribunal has given good reasons for applying the multiplier of 15. This was in addition of taking into consideration that the predecessors of the deceased all lived for more than 80 years. The High Court reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10 without taking into consideration circumstances considered by the Tribunal and thus committed the error. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the High Court only to the extent of the application of multiplier and uphold other findings including reduction of interest. The present appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part. The computation of compensation now shall be made on the basis of multiplier of 15, the difference of enhanced amount which has yet not been paid by the respondent State shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months from today." 6. The Tribunal has held that deceased's yearly income as Rs.15,000/-per annum, which is a notional income. Deceased was maintaining his wife, mother as well as two sons and he was doing the work of tyre moulding. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income on notional basis. He must be earning about Rs.36,000/- per year and, therefore, the dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased to be 40 years as per stipulation made in the second Schedule of Section 163A of the Act, the multiplier of 15 would apply. Thus, the amount of compensation on this score would be Rs.24,000 x 15 = 3,60,000/-. We add further Rs.12,000/- on three heads namely loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, in toto, the appellants would be entitled to get Rs.3,72,000/- (Rs. Three lacs seventy two thousand only). The differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal till the date of deposit before it. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order passed today. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount keeping in view the law laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order passed today. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount 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 [ AIR 1994 SC 1631 ]. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.