Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1223 (MP)

MANU v. BHAWANI SINGH

2008-10-16

INDRANI DATTA, S.SAMVATSAR

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act being aggrieved by the award dated 8th January, 2006 passed by 6th Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 94/06, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65,000. 00 to the claimants towards compensation for the death of deceased suresh Singh. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the deceased Suresh Singh was cleaner in truck No. M. P. 07-G-2140. According to the claimants he was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month and was maintaining his family. On 5th september, 2006 the said truck met with an accident due to which Suresh Singh sustained injuries and he died. Crime No. 128/2006 was registered against the driver for commission of offence under Section 304 (A) IPC. Driver of truck was arrested and challan was filed against him. ( 3. ) AFTER the death of Suresh Singh, the present appellants who are claimants filed an application under Section 163 (A) of Motor vehicles Act alleging the income of deceased at Rs. 3,300/- per month. The Claims Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at rs. 2,000/- per month and awarded compensation after applying the multiplier of 16. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the income of the deceased was assessed by the Claims Tribunal on the lower side. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellants that D. W. 1 Bhawani Singh, who was driving the vehicle himself has admitted that deceased was having an income of Rs. 3,300/- per month. Hence, according to the Counsel for appellant the Claims Tribunal has committed error in disbelieving the statement of D. W. 1 in assessing the income of deceased at rs. 2,000/- per month. ( 4. ) IN reply to the aforesaid contention, Shri s. S. Bansal learned Counsel for Insurance company supported the award and contended that income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. He also contended that even if the appeal is allowed and amount of compensation is enhanced still the Insurance company will be liable to pay the compensation only to the extent as provided by the Workmen compensation Act. For this purpose, he relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of national Insurance Co. He also contended that even if the appeal is allowed and amount of compensation is enhanced still the Insurance company will be liable to pay the compensation only to the extent as provided by the Workmen compensation Act. For this purpose, he relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and others (1) 2005 (3) SCJ 537 = 2005 (4)ALT 44 (SC) = 2005 (II) MP J R 286:2005 (2)T A C 289. ( 5. ) AFTER hearing the parties, we find that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased. It has come in the evidence that deceased was cleaner on a truck and the accident occurred in the year 2006. So, even in the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the income of the deceased can be assessed equal to the income of skilled labourer. In the year 2006, the income of the labourer can be safely assessed at Rs. 100. 00 per day that comes to Rs. 3,000. 00 per month and rs. 36,000. 00 per year. After deducting the one-third towards own expenses, the dependency will come to Rs. 24,000/- per year. The deceased was about 40 years of age and claims Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 16 which is reasonable and, therefore, we also apply the same multiplier of 16 and then the compensation will come to Rs. 3,84,000. 00. Apart from the aforesaid amount, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,000/-towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc. Considering all these, the total compensation comes to rs. 4,00,000. 00 (Rupees four lacs ). ( 6. ) SO far as the question of liability is concerned, from the perusal of judgment cited by the Counsel for respondent No. 3 in the case of Prembai (supra), it is clear that in that case the Insurance Company has covered limited liability, however, in the present case, after perusing the policy (Ext. D/1) it is clear that the Insurance Company has charged rs. 75/-for covering the risk of three employees that includes Cleaner. Hence, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for Insurance company is distinguishable and will not apply in the present case. ( 7. D/1) it is clear that the Insurance Company has charged rs. 75/-for covering the risk of three employees that includes Cleaner. Hence, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for Insurance company is distinguishable and will not apply in the present case. ( 7. ) CONSIDERING the above facts, we hold that Insurance Company alongwith other respondents is jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 4 lacs. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till realization. With the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed off.