Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 222 (MP)

Kishanlal v. Bhanwarlal

2007-02-22

K.K.LAHOTI

body2007
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 29.6.2002, passed by the IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 19/2001, by which the Trbunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till realisation, in favour of the appellants. 2. The impugned award has been assailed by the appellants on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the deceased and has also wrongly applied multiplier. It is submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and at the time of death of Ramchandra, the sole son of the appellants, he was 25 years old and the appellants, at the time of filing of claim petition, were 53 and 50 years old respectively, so, the multiplier of eleven which has been applied by the Tribunal is on lower side, while the appellants were entitled of the multiplier of 13. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the award and submitted that the Court below has rightly considered the evidence and assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income which is in accordance with law. The multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied, as appellant No.1 has been found 55 years old and appellant No.2 has been found 52 years old. It is submitted that this appeal has no merit and may be dismissed. 4. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, factual position in the present case may be seen. On 25.3.2000, the son of appellants Ramchandra-was going on a Motorcycle to Mandsaur. The motorcycle was owned by respondent No.1 - Bhanwarlal and was driven by Mohanlal, while deceased Ramchandra was the pillion rider. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. When the vehicle reached between Fatehgarh and Songari, an unknown vehicle, dashed the Motorcycle resulting into death of both Ramchandra and Mohanlal. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Afjalpur, on which Criminal Case No. 3312000, u/Ss. 279 and 304-A of the IPC was registered. As the vehicle could not be traced out so F.R. was filed. Thereafter the present claim petition has been filed against the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle. It is submitted that Ramchandra was sole son of the appellants. 279 and 304-A of the IPC was registered. As the vehicle could not be traced out so F.R. was filed. Thereafter the present claim petition has been filed against the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle. It is submitted that Ramchandra was sole son of the appellants. He was Driver and was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Out of this, he was spending 1/3rd amount on himself. The appellant claimed Rs. 5,75,000/- as compensation against the respondents. 5. The respondent No. 1 though caused appearance, but had not filed written statement and proceeded ex parte. 6. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement and denied the allegations of the claim petition. It was submitted that deceased Ramchandra was not having driving licence. The Tribunal framed the issues and after recording evidence found that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 on 25.3.2000 and Mohanlal had rashly and negligently driven the vehicle and dashed to an unknown vehicle, resulting into the accident and death of Ramchandra. 7. The Tribunal found that the income of the deceased could not be proved and on the basis of notional income, the income was assessed at Rs.15,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd amount on the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal 'found that the age of the parents were 55 and 52 years, respectively, so the multiplier of 11 was applied and assessed the compensation for Rs. 1,10,000/-. For funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- has been allowed and total amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- has been awarded against the respondents. 8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have adduced evidence of Kisna (AW 1) who has stated that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. In paragraph 5 of the cross-examination, the respondent No.2 has specifically asked that he was paying Rs. 1,500/- or Rs. 2,000/- per month to the parents. This fact has further not been cross-examined by the respondent No.2, meaning thereby the deceased was paying between Rs. 1,500/- to 2,000/- to the appellants. If a reasonable amount is taken into consideration, then it can very well be ascertained that the deceased was paying average Rs. 1,800/- per month to the parents, out of his income. This fact has further not been cross-examined by the respondent No.2, meaning thereby the deceased was paying between Rs. 1,500/- to 2,000/- to the appellants. If a reasonable amount is taken into consideration, then it can very well be ascertained that the deceased was paying average Rs. 1,800/- per month to the parents, out of his income. This amount may be taken into consideration as dependency of the appellants and multiplying this amount by 12, the annual dependency may be assessed at Rs. 21,600/-. 9. The age of the parents at the time of filing of the application was between 50-53 years and a multiplier of 11 on the age of the mother may be taken into consideration, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Halkbai v. Managing Director, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation [ 2004 (2) JLJ 47 = 2004 ACJ 481 ]. Applying the aforesaid multiplier, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,37,600/-. On this amount, the appellants are further entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/towards loss of estate. Though the appellants are claiming higher compensation in this regard, but the application was filed u/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, so the amount specified in the Schedule is payable to the appellants. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,42,100/- (Rs. two lacs forty two thousand and one hundred) arid accordingly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced. On enhanced amount, the appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7 (seven) per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realisation. The enhanced amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in a beneficiary scheme for a period of five years. However, the appellants shall be entitled to get interest, if prayed before the Tribunal. With the aforesaid enhancement, award passed by the Tribunal is maintained with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-.