Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1079 (MP)

Mamta v. Vedprakash Sharma

2008-08-27

S.K.GANGELE

body2008
Judgment S.K. Gangele, J. ( 1. ) Heard. ( 2. ) The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 4.12.2002 passed in Claim Case No. 12 of 2002 for enhancement of compensation. ( 3. ) On 18.12.2001, deceased Pawan had been going from Porsa to Ambah. He was driving a jeep bearing registration No. MP 06-B 1226. Near the village Saddupura at Police Station, Ambah, jeep was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. MP 06- 6682. In the aforesaid accident, deceased Pawan died on the spot. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Ambah and the police registered an offence against the driver of the offending truck vide Crime No. 542 of 2001 and filed a criminal case against the driver of the aforesaid truck. Thereafter, the claimants who are wife and mother of the deceased filed claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 55,07,000. ( 4. ) Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,74,000 in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal further held that the jeep bearing registration No. MP 06-B 1226 was insured at the relevant time by the insurance company. The driver had a valid driving licence, hence, the driver, owner and the insurance company are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly and awarded a less compensation. ( 6. ) Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a proper compensation after considering all the evidence on record of the case, hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 7. ) The liability for payment of compensation has not been disputed hence, the appeal has been decided with regard to quantum of compensation. ( 8. ) The wife of the deceased Mamta in her evidence deposed that her husband had been working as a jeep driver. He died when he was driving a jeep. She further deposed that her husband had been getting Rs. 4,000 per month as salary and Rs. 50 per day as allowances. ( 8. ) The wife of the deceased Mamta in her evidence deposed that her husband had been working as a jeep driver. He died when he was driving a jeep. She further deposed that her husband had been getting Rs. 4,000 per month as salary and Rs. 50 per day as allowances. The owner of the jeep, Harisarnam Singh in his evidence stated that the deceased had been working as driver in his jeep and he was getting Rs. 4,000 as salary. ( 9. ) Looking to the evidence on record of the case, the income of the deceased could be fixed at Rs. 3,000 per month. Hence, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum. Because the claimants are wife and mother of the deceased, hence, the dependency could be fixed at 2/3rd. On the basis of application of 2/3rd dependency, the total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of the deceased comes to Rs. 24,000. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16. However, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 24 years. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the age group of 20-24 years, the multiplier of 17 will be applicable. Hence, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier of 17 in this case. After applying the aforesaid multiplier, the total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,08,000. The claimants are also entitled to get another Rs. 20,000 on other heads. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 4,28,000. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,74,000 in favour of the claimants. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get total enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 (rupees one lakh fifty-four thousand). ( 10. ) Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed to the extent that the appellants are entitled to get a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 (rupees one lakh fifty-four thousand). The enhanced amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal up to the date of realization. The liability for payment of compensation is as per the award passed by the Tribunal. 1,54,000 (rupees one lakh fifty-four thousand). The enhanced amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal up to the date of realization. The liability for payment of compensation is as per the award passed by the Tribunal. 50 per cent of the enhanced amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank up to a period of five years. The rest of the terms and conditions will be as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.