Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 190 (MP)

Sunita v. Kulvir Singh

2007-02-15

ABHAY GOHIL, RAJENDRA MENON

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellants who are the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 7. 7. 2000 passed by Fourth motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 84 of 1998. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 3. 3. 1998 at about 9 p. m. deceased Pretipal singh Was working as driver on truck No. MP 06-E 1086. The said truck was standing on A. B. Road opposite Rajgarh Farm. When Pretipal Singh was tying the rope behind the truck, another offending truck No. PB 08-F 1251, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came and dashed the truck No. MP 06-E 500 and as a result of this dash, this truck entered into another truck No. MP 06-E 1086 and caused accident. The deceased came between the two trucks and died on spot. The driver of the truck which caused accident was caught on spot. The report of the accident was lodged at P. S. , Kshipra where crime was registered. The claimants who are the widow and son of the deceased including parents of the deceased, filed claim petition for claiming compensation of Rs, 18,00,000 against the owner, driver of the offending truck, including the insurance company. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 28 years. He was driver on the truck and was getting salary of Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 30 per day as allowance. The parents, widow and son were depending on the deceased. Before the Claims Tribunal the respondent No. 2 remained ex parte. Defence of respondent no. 1 was struck off by the Tribunal on 5. 8. 1999 and the claim was contested by the insurance company. The insurance company pleaded that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of truck Nos. MP 06-E 500 and MP 06-E 1086 and they are liable not the offending truck for causing the accident. Thereafter the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused by truck No. PB 08-F 1251 with the help of truck No. MP 06-E 500 and, therefore, the deceased died. The tribunal held that insurance company of offending vehicle/truck No. PB 08-F 1251 is liable for compensation and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,02,000. Thereafter the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was caused by truck No. PB 08-F 1251 with the help of truck No. MP 06-E 500 and, therefore, the deceased died. The tribunal held that insurance company of offending vehicle/truck No. PB 08-F 1251 is liable for compensation and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,02,000. Seeking enhancement of compensation the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 3. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal has recorded finding against the offending truck and has held that the insurance company of the aforesaid truck is liable for payment of compensation. There is no dispute about the liability of the insurance company or about the accident. The only question involved in the appeal is as to what would be the just and proper compensation to the claimants. ( 5. ) THE claimants have examined Sunita, aw 1, who is the widow of the deceased. She has stated that the age of the deceased was 28 years. He was getting the salary as driver of Rs. 3,000 per month and also getting Rs. 30 per day as allowance for daily expenses, etc. and she along with the parents of the deceased were dependent on the deceased. Pooran Singh, AW 2, has also stated that the age of the deceased was between 27 and 28 years. He was getting salary of Rs. 3,200-Rs. 3,300 and also getting allowance of Rs. 30 per day from the owner of the truck. The claimants have also examined owner of the truck Ranjeet singh, AW 3. He has stated that he was paying salary of Rs. 3,000 to the deceased, as he was working as driver on his vehicle. He was also paying Rs. 30 per day as the allowance and the age of the deceased was 30 years. He has also issued salary certificate, exh. P7, to the claimants. Though in cross-examination he has admitted that he was keeping a register in which he was mentioning the salary but he has not produced the same. In the cross-examination he has further admitted that the driver was also keeping one copy of the register but the same has also not been produced and the salary certificate has been issued on the instructions of the counsel for the claimants. In the cross-examination he has further admitted that the driver was also keeping one copy of the register but the same has also not been produced and the salary certificate has been issued on the instructions of the counsel for the claimants. The Tribunal has held that he was driver working on the aforesaid vehicle but instead of salary of Rs. 3,000 the Tribunal has considered the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 1,800 and considered the dependency at Rs. 14,400 and applied the multiplier of 13. Considering the age of the deceased as 32 years and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,87,200 and further awarded Rs. 14,800 in various other heads and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,02,000. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has neither assessed the income properly nor has applied proper multiplier. His submission was that sufficient evidence was available on record to consider the salary of the deceased as rs. 3,000 per month and he was also getting daily allowance of Rs. 30. ( 7. ) SO far as the daily allowance is concerned, because the same was paid to the deceased who was working as the driver for taking food in the way, therefore, this amount cannot be considered as part of the salary as the deceased was spending the same on himself while on duty. So far as the salary of deceased driver is concerned, though there is no rebuttal of this fact that the salary of deceased was not Rs. 3,000, but looking to this evidence of Ranjeet singh, AW 3, who is the owner of the truck that he has issued certificate of salary on the basis of the counsel for the claimants and he has not produced any documentary evidence or account books of payment of salary of Rs. 3,000 to the driver, therefore, in view of the aforesaid lacuna in evidence it is clear that salary of the deceased cannot be considered at Rs. 3,000 per month, but looking to this fact that the drivers who are working on the trucks of national route are getting salary between Rs. 2,000 and rs. 3,000 per month. 3,000 to the driver, therefore, in view of the aforesaid lacuna in evidence it is clear that salary of the deceased cannot be considered at Rs. 3,000 per month, but looking to this fact that the drivers who are working on the trucks of national route are getting salary between Rs. 2,000 and rs. 3,000 per month. This accident took place in the year of 1998, therefore, considering the year in which the accident took place as well as the future prospects of the driver we consider the salary of the deceased at Rs. 2,500 per month, that is, rs. 30,000 per year. After deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses, the amount of dependency would come to Rs. 20,000 per year. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the age of the father of the deceased is 57 years and age of the mother is 56 years and age of the wife of the deceased was 23 years on the day when the accident took place and he was having 6 years old child and in the post-mortem report the age has been shown as 35 years, though the Tribunal has considered the age as 32 years but we consider the age of the deceased as between 32 and 35 years and we further hold that on this age group as per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable instead of 13, as the deceased was a young man. On application of this multiplier on the amount of dependency, the amount of dependency would come to (Rs. 20,000 x 17) = Rs. 3,40,000. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000 in the head of funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium as well as love and affection and Rs. 1,800 towards the conveyance charges for bringing the dead body from Indore to Morena. Thus, a sum of Rs. 15,000 in all other heads including the head of loss of consortium is awarded. Thus, we award the total compensation of Rs. 3,55,000, which is enhanced from rs. 2,02,000. Enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of appeal. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed as indicated above with counsels fee Rs. 500. Appeal allowed.