Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 359 (MP)

Sarita v. Mahboob Khan

2007-03-28

J.K.MAHESHWARI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) COUNSEL for the appellants. Ms. Sudha shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No. 2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was finally heard. By this appeal the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora in Claim case No. 101 of 2003 vide award dated 9. 12. 2004 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,54,000 as compensation as against the claim of rs. 39,20,000 for death of Chandrakant, husband of appellant No. 1, Sarita, son of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, Girishchandra and sushila and the father of appellant No. 4, kuldeep Joshi. ( 2. ) ON 29. 9. 2003, deceased Chandrakant joshi along with Shahid Khan and omprakash Trivedi had gone on motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 14-M 440 to m. P. Electricity Board and while they were returning, the driver, non-applicant no. 1, Mahboob Khan came driving truck from behind bearing registration No. MP 09-D 4513 and on account of the rash and negligent act of the said driver, there was collision with the motor cycle and the three persons mounted thereon came under the truck and died instantaneously. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the claimants, Chandrakant joshi, aged 28 years, was a b class contractor registered with M. P. Electricity board and at the time of the accident, he had been awarded work order with regard to the installation of the new meters in the area. It was also averred that he was having a shop of electrical appliances from which also he had income of Rs. 5,000 per month. Claiming that the total income of chandrakant was Rs. 20,000 per month, the said amount of compensation was claimed. The claims Tribunal has, however, awarded rs. 4,54,000 and, therefore, dissatisfied, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants examined that in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000, the tribunal has omitted to give due weightage to the evidence adduced in the case which indicated that vide Exh. A13 and Exh. A14 he had been paid Rs. 1,38,096 towards his bills. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal has paid no regard to the income from the shop. According to the learned counsel, since the deceased was earning about Rs. A13 and Exh. A14 he had been paid Rs. 1,38,096 towards his bills. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal has paid no regard to the income from the shop. According to the learned counsel, since the deceased was earning about Rs. 20,000, the assessment of his monthly income at Rs. 3,000 is much low and not supported by the evidence. ( 5. ) COUNSEL for the respondent insurance company has pointed out that no evidence was led to show that there was a regular income from M. P. E. B. in his capacity as contractor and that he was having income from the electric shop as well. ( 6. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 7. ) THE only question which has been raised by the rival parties is as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation. While learned counsel for the appellants contends that compensation is meagre, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has even otherwise been quite liberal in granting compensation of rs. 4,54,000 although there was no legally sustainable evidence in support of the claim of the income of the deceased. ( 8. ) THE Tribunal has, on the basis of its assessment, held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month and deducting 1/3rd from the said income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, applied a multiplier of 18 to the annual income and assessed the loss of dependency in the sum of Rs. 4,32,000. In addition the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant No. 1 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000 each to appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs. 2,000 has been awarded towards funeral expenses. ( 9. ) IT is not disputed before us that the deceased was a skilled worker engaged in electrical work and there is evidence to the effect that he had been granted work order in respect of the installation of meters. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that even if there was no legal evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, if he was treated as a skilled worker, he must be earning not less than rs. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that even if there was no legal evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, if he was treated as a skilled worker, he must be earning not less than rs. 150 per day excluding four holidays, sundays, the deceased must be earning rs. 150 for 26 days in a month. Accordingly, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,900 per month out of this, if 1/3rd, i. e. , Rs. 1,300 is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency will come to Rs. 2,600. In terms of the annual loss the amount comes to Rs. 31,200 and if this amount is further multiplied by the multiplier used by the tribunal, i. e. , 18, the amount for the future loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,61,600. The Tribunal has awarded amount of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses which total up to Rs. 22,000. The tribunal has, however, not awarded any amount for loss to estate. We are, therefore, of the view that a sum of Rs. 2,400 should be granted to the appellant towards loss to estate. If the amount of Rs. 22,000 as awarded by the Tribunal and the sum of rs. 2,000 towards loss to estate awarded by this court is added to the loss of dependency of Rs. 5,61,600, the appellants become entitled to Rs. 5,86,000 as compensation as against Rs. 4,54,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000 each to the appellants, viz. , appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3. They shall be entitled only to the said amount. The amount of enhancement shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The direction made by the Claims Tribunal in para 29 (d) of the award shall remain unaltered. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased. With the above modification in the award, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.