Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1224 (MP)

DURGA KORI v. RAM GOPAL

2007-11-28

ARUN MISHRA, S.A.NAQVI

body2007
Judgment S.A.Naqvi, J. ( 1. ) The appellants have preferred the miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by impugned award dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Xlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MVC No.09/04 whereby the compensation amount of Rs.2,63,000/- has been awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. ( 2. ) The admitted facts are that the respondent No.2 Smt. Raj Rani Tripathi was owner of the truck No. MP 19/1981, the respondent No.l Ramgopal was driver of the truck and the respondent No.3 the New India Assurance Company Limited was insurer of the truck. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1 Ramgopal and Rewaram Kori died in the accident. The respondent No.5 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was insurer of the jeep No. MP 20-FA/0122. The appellant No.l Smt. Durga Kori is widow, appellant No.2 to 4 are children and appellant Nos.5 and 6 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was driver of the jeep. ( 3. ) The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 28.11.2002 at about 9:30 p.m. deceased Rewa Ram was driving jeep No. MP 20-FA/0122 he was going to Sihora for the work of Bank and other persons were also sitting in the jeep. The respondent No. 1 by driving the truck rashly and negligently dashed the jeep No. MP 20-FA/ 0122, the jeep turned turtle and Rewa Ram sustained injuries and died on the spot. The FIR was lodged. The respondent No.l was charge-sheeted. The deceased was getting handsome salary. The appellants claimed compensation amount of Rs.13,92,000/-. ( 4. ) The respondents No. 1 and 2 denied the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Rewa Ram. There was no negligence of the respondent No 1, Rewa Ram was drunk. The respondent No.3 pleaded that the respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The truck was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. ( 5. ) The tribunal framed four issues. The respondent No.3 pleaded that the respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The truck was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. ( 5. ) The tribunal framed four issues. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, perusing the evidence and material on record, the tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,63,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the impugned award the appellants have preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation amount on various grounds. ( 6. ) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned award, the evidence and the material on record. ( 7. ) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal erred in calculating monthly income of the deceased, annual loss of dependency of the appellants and awarding compensation amount towards loss of future dependency of the appellants. Contrary to that, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 supported the impugned award and contended that the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is just and proper. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also contended that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not liable to indemnify the appellants. ( 8. ) The only question for consideration in the appeal is adequacy of compensation amount. It is not disputed that Rewa Ram died in the vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck by the respondent No. 1 Ram Gopal. At the time of accident deceased Rewa Ram working as a driver on jeep owned by respondent No.4. The tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month admittedly Rewa Ram was driver on the jeep of respondent No.4. Durga Bai (AW-1) deposed that the deceased was used to earn Rs.2200/- per month as pay and Rs.1500/- per day as allowance. The statement could not be impeached in the cross-examination. No evidence has been lead by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to controvert the statement of the witness. It is a matter of common knowledge that the minimum pay of the driver vehicle in these days is Rs.3,000/- per month. The statement could not be impeached in the cross-examination. No evidence has been lead by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to controvert the statement of the witness. It is a matter of common knowledge that the minimum pay of the driver vehicle in these days is Rs.3,000/- per month. On the basis of evidence of Durga Bai (AW-1) it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceases was Rs.3,000/-. Consequently, we set aside the findings of the tribunal in this respect. We hold that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum by deducting l/3rd amount from the annual income towards the expenses of the deceased had he been alive annual dependency of the appellants of deceased comes Rs.24,000/-. The age of the deceased was 40 years. Looking to the age of the deceased and age of the claimants the multiplier of 16 can be safely used. Consequently, the loss of future dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.24,000 X 16=Rs.3,84,000/- besides that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the customary heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life inclusive of Rs. 10,000/- to the widow for loss of consortium. Hence, the appellants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.4,24,000/- (Rs. Four lacs twenty four thousand only). ( 9. ) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the tribunal is modified and is enhanced from Rs.2,63,000/- to Rs.4,24,000/- (Rs. Four lacs twenty four thousand only). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the tribunal till realization. No order as to costs.