Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1225 (MP)

VARSHA v. UTTARANCHAL RAJYA PARIVAHAN NIGAM

2007-11-28

N.K.MODY

body2007
Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) This order shall also govern the disposal of MA. No.3293/07, which is being filed by respondent no. 1 and 2 against award dated 16/08/07 passed by XVIth Additional MACT (Fast Track), Indore in claim case No. 136/06 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and a sum of Rs.8,41,500/- has been awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim petition alleging that deceased Ramesh was husband of appellant no. 1, father of appellant No. 2 and son of appellant no. 3, who was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.UP. 11-C/2137, on 28/03/06 as passenger. It was alleged that the said bus met with an accident with another bus bearing registration No. UPA.07and4164, which was driven by respondent no. 2 and owned by respondent no. 1. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 accident took place in which ramesh died. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. ( 3. ) After framing of issue and recording of evidence learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.8,41,500/-, break up of which is as under :- ( 4. ) Being dissatisfied of the inadequacy of the amount awarded by the learned tribunal, MA. No.3348/07 has been filed by the appellants, while respondent No. 1 has also filed MA. No.3293/07, wherein the submission of respondents no. 1 and 2 is that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side. ( 5. ) Mr. VS. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no amount has been awarded on account of loss of love affection. Learned counsel submits that multiplier of 13 has been applied by the learned tribunal while looking to the age of the appellant no. 1 and 2 the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased also has been assessed on lower side as the deceased Ramesh apart from the service, was also doing other work. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that no evidence has been adduced by the respondents in rebuttal. ( 6. ) Mr. RN. Dave, learned counsel for respondent no. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that no evidence has been adduced by the respondents in rebuttal. ( 6. ) Mr. RN. Dave, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side. For assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month the learned tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the appellants. It is submitted that appellants has examined one Nimesh, who is one of the partner of M/s Nimesh Engineering Works. Learned counsel submits that only on the basis of a pay sleep which is Ex.P/5, learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that neither any account of M/s Nimesh Engineering Works were submitted nor there is any evidence regarding the educational qualification of the deceased is on record. Learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side and deserves to be reduced. It is also submitted that looking to the age of the deceased multiplier is also on higher side, which ought to have been 11 as per second scheduled of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 7. ) From perusal of record it appears there was no sufficient evidence relating to the income of the deceased which has been assessed @ Rs. 8,000/-per month. No accounts of M/s Nimesh Engineering Works has been filed to demonstrate that deceased was being paid salary @ Rs.8,000/- per month. No documentary evidence is on record to show the academic qualification of the deceased Ramesh. In the facts and circumstances of the case the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed @ Rs.5,000/- per month. So far as the application of multiplier is concern, looking to the age of the appellant no. 1 wife of deceased and appellant no. 2 who is, minor daughter of the deceased the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. Similarly on account of loss of love and affection no amount has been awarded. Appellants are entitled for the following amount:- Thus, the appellants are entitle for Rs.6,30,000/-, instead of Rs. 8,41,500/-. The amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of application. The amount shall be deposited in the name of appellants no. Similarly on account of loss of love and affection no amount has been awarded. Appellants are entitled for the following amount:- Thus, the appellants are entitle for Rs.6,30,000/-, instead of Rs. 8,41,500/-. The amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of application. The amount shall be deposited in the name of appellants no. 1 and 2 in the ratio of 50:50 in a nationalized bank in such a manner so that it can earn highest rate of interest and the monthly interest shall be payable to the appellant no. 1 and the principle amount shall be released looking to the educational and marital needs of the appellant no. 2. ( 8. ) With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in the record of MA. No.3293/07. Appeal disposed of.