Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1365 (MP)

Gangaram Singh Gurjar v. Bharatlal

2008-11-24

S.K.GANGELE

body2008
Judgment (Per S.K.Gangele, J.) ( 1. ) The appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 23rd September, 2002, passed in Claim Case No. 34/2002. ( 2. ) On 10th February, 2002, deceased Mahendra Shigh had been returning on his bicycle after finishing his duty from M.P. Milk Union, Banmore. At that time a dumper bearing registration No. M.P. 07/G- 2927 dashed the deceased. In the aforesaid accident, he died on the spot and a report of the accident was lodged at the police station and, subsequently, an offence was also registered. The appellants filed a claim application claiming total compensation of Rs. 35,20,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the dumper and the vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company and the driver had also valid licence and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,01,000/-. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a proper compensation has not been awarded and the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly by the Tribunal and the dependency is also on the lower side. In support of her contention, she relied on a decision in the case of Neelam Sharma and others v. Braj Mohan Nai and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 1879 . ( 4. ) Contrary to this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that a proper compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the dependency has also been assessed properly by the Tribunal. ( 5. ) The claimants are father, mother, unmarried sisters and one unmarried brother of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the father of the deceased has been died. After assessing the age of the mother, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for the appellants does not have any dispute bout the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal. ( 6. ) With regard to income of the deceased, a certificate has been filed as Ext.P/11 by the Gwalior Milk Union, Banmore as a contract labour. In the aforesaid certificate, it has been mentioned that the deceased was getting Rs. 74,23p. per day. The contractor also in his evidence stated that the deceased had been working as a contract labour through him and he was getting near about Rs. 75/- per day. In the aforesaid certificate, it has been mentioned that the deceased was getting Rs. 74,23p. per day. The contractor also in his evidence stated that the deceased had been working as a contract labour through him and he was getting near about Rs. 75/- per day. The claimants further adduced the evidence that the deceased had also been selling milk in the market and he was earning extra money from the aforesaid business. ( 7. ) Looking to the above facts of the case, in my opinion, the income of the deceased be ascertained to Rs. 75/- per day and after considering all the factors, the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 2500/-. ( 8. ) With regard to applying the dependency, the Tribunal has observed that the deceased was unmarried and consequently applied 50% dependency. ( 9. ) Honble Supreme Court in the case of Fakeerappa and another v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 699 : 2004 (2) TAC = 2004 (3) ALT. 21.2, 21.3 (DN SC) has held that any rigid rule or formula with regard to applying the dependency cannot be applied with universal application, which is as under:- "6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that there cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the percentage or quantum of deduction. The Tribunal and the High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold that 50 per cent deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the High court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this Court such a grievance cannot be raised. It is also submitted that the multiplier of 18 as adopted is on the higher side. 7. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an over all view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." ( 10. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an over all view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." ( 10. ) The aforesaid judgment has further been relied by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarojamma and another 2008 (2) TAC 756 (SC). ( 11. ) In the present case the father of the deceased had already been died. The age of the mother was 60 years and two unmarried sisters, they were aged about 21 and 17 years. There is already brother and the younger brother of the deceased was also in the family. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and looking to the fact that deceased was unmarried, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held the dependency as half. ( 12. ) Considering the above facts of the case, on the basis of monthly income of Rs. 2,500/- of the deceased, the annual income comes to Rs. 30,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 8 as applied by the Tribunal, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- and after deducting dependency, the loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- and for other heads, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to award another compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. Consequently, the appellants are entitled a total compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,01,000. Hence, the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees Thirty-four Thousands only). ( 13. ) Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is allowed to the extent that the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs. 34,000/-(Rupees Thirty- four Thousands only) with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal upto its realization. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the terms and conditions will be same as per the award of Claims Tribunal. No order as to cost.