Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 966 (MP)

Jamunabai (Mahila) v. Sardut Singh

2006-08-08

DIPAK MISRA, R.S.JHA

body2006
ORDER 1. These appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation. Be it noted, the insurance company being aggrieved by the direction issued by the Tribunal directing the insurer to pay and recover has preferred a batch of appeals MA No. 787/2004 and other connected appeals. Other appeals were dismissed as per order dated 10.4.2006 after placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others [ 2004 (2) JLJ 127 = (2004) 2 SCC 1 ] and Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum, [ (2004) 8 SCC 667 ]. Hence, the said question would not arise in this appeal as doctrine of pay and recover would be applicable. 2. The only question that survives in this batch of appeals is with regard to justness of compensation. 3. In MA No. 1473/2006 Manuwa Ahirwar, the claimant-appellant, had initiated C.1aim Case No. 75/2000 for grant of compensation for the death of his wife who was 35 years of age and was engaged as a labourer. The Tribunal in the absence of proof applied the principle of notional income and taking into consideration applied the multiplier of 12. Be it noted the Tribunal has fixed the yearly contribution at Rs.7,500/-. It is noteworthy to mention that the accident had occurred on 11.12.1993. In our considered opinion, the contribution that has been fixed at Rs.7,500/per year is erroneous. The contribution would be Rs.10,000/-. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the multiplier of 16 would be attracted. Thus, the amount would come to Rs.10,000/- x 16 = Rs.1,60,000/-. To the aforesaid sum we shall add Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, the sum in toto would come to Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy thousand only). 4. MA No. 1753/2005 relates to Claim Case No. 81/2000 preferred by Babu and two other legal representatives of the deceased, Pappu who was aged about 3 years. The Tribunal has granted Rs.75,000/- towards compensation. Be it noted, in similar case forming the subject-matter of MA No. 1749/2005 this Court taking note of the date of the accident had declined to interfere. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the award and the same stands affirmed. 5. The Tribunal has granted Rs.75,000/- towards compensation. Be it noted, in similar case forming the subject-matter of MA No. 1749/2005 this Court taking note of the date of the accident had declined to interfere. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the award and the same stands affirmed. 5. In MA No. 1469/2006 the claimant-appellant, Mahila Jamuna Bai, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 71/2000 for the death of her father has preferred this appeal. It is noticeable that the deceased, father of the claimant, was aged about 50 years. The Tribunal on consideration of his engagement as a cobbler, determined the income of Rs.18,000/- per year and fixed the contribution at Rs.9,000/-. The Tribunal as is manifest, has applied the multiplier of 8 and determined the compensation at Rs.75,000/-. We are of the considered opinion that the determination made by die Tribunal is fallacious. Once the Tribunal has reached the conclusion that his income was Rs.18,000/- at the time of the accident, contribution should have been determined at Rs.12,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 11 would have been appropriately applied. Thus, the compensation would come to Rs.12,000/- x 11 = Rs.1,32,000/-. To the aforesaid we shall add Rs.4,500/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount would come to Rs.1,36,500/- (Rupees one lac thirty six thousand five hundred only). 6. In MA No. 1472/2006 the claimant-appellant,Manua Ahirwar, is dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 76/ 2000 whereby he had put forth a claim of Rs.75,000/-. Be it noted, in similar cases forming the subject-matter of MA No. 1749/2005 and other connected matters this Court taking note of the date of the accident had declined to interfere. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the award and the same is given stamp of approval. 7. In MA No. 1238/2005 the legal representatives of the deceased have called in question the propriety of the award whereby the Tribunal was awarded a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- for the death of Gouribai, wife of Hariram and mother of other claimants-appellants. The Tribunal has determined the yearly income at Rs.15,000/- and fixed the contribution at Rs.10,000/-. It is not disputed that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has determined the yearly income at Rs.15,000/- and fixed the contribution at Rs.10,000/-. It is not disputed that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13. Application of the multiplier by the Tribunal indubitably is wrong. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to get the compensation of Rs.10,000/- x 17 = Rs.1,17,000/-. To the aforesaid sum we shall add an amount of Rs.10,000/- on three heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand only). 8. In the result, MA No. 1473/2006, MA No. 1469/2006 and MA No. 1238/2005 are allowed in part and the MA No. 1753/2005 and MA No. 1472/2006 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.