Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1006 (MP)

Nohri Devi v. Bane Singh

2007-09-18

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
ORDER Kulshrestha, J. -- 1. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor· Vehicles Act, the appellants have assailed the award dated 9.5.2000 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khachrod in Claim Case No. 15/98 by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/- for the death of the husband of appellant No. 1 Smt. Nohri Devi and father of appellants No.2, 3 and 4 in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the appellants, while deceased Ramavtar was proceeding on his bicycle, respondent No.2 Laxman Singh came driving a tractor and on account of his rashness and negligence, the tractor collided with Ramavtar resulting in his instantaneous death. It was alleged that Ramavtar was working in the Grasim Industries, from where he was getting annual salary of Rs. 86,735/-, in respect whereof the appellants had filed salary certificate Ex. P-1 and the certificate of income Ex. P-2. In this context a sum of Rs. 32,75,000/- was claimed but since only Rs. 3,97,000/- have been awarded, this appeal has been filed for enhancement. 3. The non-applicants No. 1 and 2, namely, owner and the driver, traversed the averments made in the claim petition and denied them. They also pleaded ignorance about the identity of the deceased and the other details mentioned in the application. The Insurance Company, respondent No.3 stated that it was not on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor that the accident occurred. It was also averred that the driver did not have a valid and effective licence with the result the Insurance Company was relieved of its obligation under the insurance policy. 4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed five issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence of respondent No.2 in driving the offending tractor which resulted in Ramavtar's death. It negatived the plea of the Insurance Company that the respondent No.2 did not have a valid and effective licence. In view of the material placed on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the face of the certificate Ex. P-1, it is apparent that the deceased was in receipt of the income of Rs. 86,735/- (Ex. In view of the material placed on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the face of the certificate Ex. P-1, it is apparent that the deceased was in receipt of the income of Rs. 86,735/- (Ex. P-1) and he had also paid income tax as per return Ex. P-2, the Tribunal erred in holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal further erred in deducting a sum of Rs. 500/- for the personal expenses of the deceased and further deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (1/3rd of Rs. 3,000/-) for the amount that the deceased must have been spending on himself during his life time. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that since the appellants failed to substantiate that the income of the deceased was Rs. 86,735/-, the Tribunal was left with no option but to make assessment of the income in the light of the facts and circumstances brought on record and deduction applied were also justified in the peculiar features of this case. 6. The core question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 7. Although the Tribunal did not believe that the deceased was in receipt of the income as per Ex. P-1 i.e. Rs. 86,735/-, we are of the view that even if his income was taken as a skilled labourer, he must have been getting at least Rs. 150/- per day in a place like Grasim Industries. If the income is thus taken, the monthly income comes to Rs. 4,500/and if from this income 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 3,000/- i.e. yearly Rs. 36,000/-. The Tribunal has selected the multiplier of 16 about which there is no dispute. The annual income of Rs. 36,000/- multiplied by comes to Rs. 5,76,000/-. Thus, we are of the considered opinion, that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency. 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 6,000/- to three children (Rs. 2,000/- each) towards loss of love and affection, and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of the estate. 5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency. 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 6,000/- to three children (Rs. 2,000/- each) towards loss of love and affection, and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of the estate. We, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on that count. 9. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,91,500/- (Rs. five lacs ninety one thousand and five hundred only) in place of Rs. 3,97,000/- (Rs. three lacs ninety seven thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents who shall be collectively and severally liable to pay the same. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application. The distribution of the amount as provided for by the Tribunal in paragraph 20 shall remain unaffected. 10. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.