Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 885 (MP)

Mamta v. Home Singh

2010-08-31

S.K.GANGELE

body2010
JUDGMENT Gangele, J. 1. The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 146 of 2004. 2. The appellants, who are wife and mother of deceased Heeralal, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They pleaded that the deceased Heeralal had been working as driver of the truck bearing No. MP 07-G 5150. He was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4,500. When the truck had been going from Bhind to Jalgaon, it turned turtle near Police Station, Ghatigaon. In the aforesaid accident, Heeralal died on the spot. The claimants claimed total compensation of Rs. 24,70,000. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award has held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver-deceased himself, hence, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 3. The findings of the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the truck, who was the deceased, hence, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation are perverse because the claimants filed the application before the Claims Tribunal under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 163-A(2) reads as under: (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 4. The claimants under the aforesaid section are not required to prove that the accident occurred due to negligence or default. 5. The Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident occurred by the truck No. MP 07-G 5150 when the deceased was driving the truck. A criminal case was also registered at Police Station, Ghatigaon, vide Crime No. 59 of 2004, the truck was seized, hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred when the deceased was driving the truck No. MP 07-G 5150 is in accordance with the law. A criminal case was also registered at Police Station, Ghatigaon, vide Crime No. 59 of 2004, the truck was seized, hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred when the deceased was driving the truck No. MP 07-G 5150 is in accordance with the law. There is no dispute to the fact that truck was insured at the relevant time by the insurance company, respondent No. 2, and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has not disputed the aforesaid fact. The insurance policy has also been filed, hence, the liability of the respondent No. 2 to indemnify the insured is unquestionable. 6. In regard to quantum of compensation, the claimant Mamta, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband was aged about 25 years and he had been getting the salary of Rs. 4,500 per month. The same facts have been stated by Ram Singh, who is the father of Mamta, and another person Nahar Singh, who was working as a driver, deposed that the deceased had been working as a driver and he had a valid driving licence. Deceased was getting Rs. 3,000 per month plus daily allowance of Rs. 50. No other witness has been examined on behalf of insurance company or other respondent before the Claims Tribunal. 7. From the aforesaid evidence, the age of the deceased would be fixed at 25 years because in the post-mortem report the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 25 years. 8. The witnesses deposed that salary of the deceased was Rs. 4,500 per month. The deceased was a driver and the accident occurred in the year 2004, hence, monthly income of the deceased could be fixed at Rs. 3,000 and the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000. The claimants are wife and mother of the deceased, hence the dependency could be assessed as 2/3rd. In that circumstance, the total loss of annual income to the claimants on account of the death of deceased comes to Rs. 24,000. Because the age of the deceased has been fixed at 25 years, hence, as per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for age group of 25-30, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable. After applying the aforesaid multiplier, the total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased comes to Rs. 24,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000. After applying the aforesaid multiplier, the total loss of income to the claimants on account of death of deceased comes to Rs. 24,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000. Because the application was filed under section of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence, claimants are entitled to Rs. 9,500 on other heads. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. It is held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,41,500 with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of filing of the claim application. The respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Out of the total awarded compensation, the appellant No. 1 who is the wife of the deceased will get 80 per cent and the appellant No. 2 who is the mother will be entitled to receive 20 per cent amount of the compensation. The 50 per cent amount awarded shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years. Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.