Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1234 (MP)

Kalpana Shrivastava v. Pawan Kumar Sharma

2008-10-20

INDRANI DATTA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2008
ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna in Claim Case No. 76/1997, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump-sum to the claimants for the death of deceased Santosh Kumar Shrivastava, who died on 18.4.1996 in the motor accident. 2. The facts in a nut shell are that on 18.4.1996 that deceased Santosh Kumar Shrivastava alongwith his family members was going in a jeep bearing registration No. MP08-A/8664 to a temple at Beenaganj for worship near village Gader at A.B. Road. The said jeep turned turtle due to negligence of the driver, in which deceased Santosh Kumar Shrivastava sustained injuries and died. After his death, the claimants, who are the widow, son and daughter filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was 30 years of age and was earning Rs. 1,400/- per month, and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the claimants without applying multiplier. Hence, this appeal. 3. Contention of Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants is that the findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal about the age and income of the deceased are erroneous. Thus, the only question involved in the appeal is about quantum. Hence, this Court need not to burden the judgment by referring the other issues regarding negligence or liability of the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side, hence the compensation be enhanced accordingly. On the other hand Shri B.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and contended that the amount of compensation is just and proper. 5. The first question is to be determined in this case is about the age of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal found that in the postmortem report the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. The Claims Tribunal further found that as per the certificate of Higher Secondary School, which is on record the date of birth of the deceased was 10.1.1967 when the date of accident is 18.4.1996. The Claims Tribunal found that in the postmortem report the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. The Claims Tribunal further found that as per the certificate of Higher Secondary School, which is on record the date of birth of the deceased was 10.1.1967 when the date of accident is 18.4.1996. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was between 25-30 years at the time of accident. The finding of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 33 years is without any merit and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, the said finding is hereby set aside and we hold that the deceased was about 29 years of age at the time of accident. 6. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have produced a certificate Ex. P-1O, which shows that the deceased was working as Chief Executive Officer in Ashamma Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., at Bina and Guna and was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month towards the salary. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,400/- per month only on the basis that the said company is closed after the death of the deceased. This reasoning of the Claims Tribunal cannot be accepted, because the deceased was the Chief Executive Officer of the said Company and it appears that he was the sole responsible of the Company and after his death it is quite natural that the Company has gone into loss. The salary certificate shows that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and the claimants themselves have claimed that salary of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. Hence, we assess his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and not Rs. 8,000/- per month. Thus, yearly income comes to Rs. 72,000/-. After deducting one-third amount, his dependency comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged between 25-30 years, hence multiplier of 18 will be applicable. After applying multiplier of 18, compensation will come to Rs. 8,64,000/-. Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled further sum of Rs. 11,000/- under various heads i.e. for funeral expenses, love and affection, loss of consortium etc. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.8,75,000/- (Rupees eight lacs seventy five thousand only). After applying multiplier of 18, compensation will come to Rs. 8,64,000/-. Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled further sum of Rs. 11,000/- under various heads i.e. for funeral expenses, love and affection, loss of consortium etc. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.8,75,000/- (Rupees eight lacs seventy five thousand only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum in place of 8% from the date of filing of appeal till its realization, as the appeal was dismissed in default for want of prosecution and was restored thereafter. 7. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid. No costs.