Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 290 (MP)

GEETA v. PARVAT SINGH

2011-03-01

P.K.JAISWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. M.A. No. 1083 of 2006 has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 24.8.2005 passed by Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No.175 of 1998, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Mehtab Bhil. M.A. No.3429 of 2006 has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 24.8.2005 passed by the Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No.77 of 1999, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,000 as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh. 2. M.A. No.3504 of 2005 has been filed by the insurer of Fiat car bearing registration No. MP 11-B 1476 owned by Parvat Singh against the award dated 24.8.2005 passed by Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No.77 of 1999 challenging their liability. 3. M.A. No.3505 of 2005 has been filed by the insurer of Fiat car bearing registration No. MP 11-B 1476 owned by Parvat Singh against the award dated 24.8.2005 passed by Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No.175 of 1998 challenging their liability. 4. The facts briefly stated are that on 19.2.1998 a Fiat car owned by Parvat Singh met with an accident with an unidentified tanker coming from the opposite direction. The Fiat car turned turtle and fell in a pit. As a result, Mehtab Bhil and driver of the car died on the spot. Two claim petitions were filed vide Claim Case Nos. 175 of 1998 and 77 of 1999 by the legal heirs of deceased Mehtab Bhil and deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh respectively. Claim Case No. 77 of 1999 was filed on the ground that the deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh was working as driver and his salary was Rs. 2,000 per month and was driving the Fiat car. He was also earning Rs. 1,00,000 from agriculture field. The insurance company filed their written statements and denied the allegation made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the issues and after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh was 26 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000. 5. 1,00,000 from agriculture field. The insurance company filed their written statements and denied the allegation made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the issues and after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh was 26 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company challenged the impugned award on the ground that deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh was driving the offending Fiat car very rashly and negligently, therefore, the Claim Case No. 77 of 1999 filed before the Tribunal by the legal heirs of deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal erred in adjudicating the matter even though he had no jurisdiction, when there is a categorical finding that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of car and the only remedy available to the legal heirs of deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh was to file the claim petition u/s 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or an application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Learned Tribunal erred in entertaining the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the claimants, drew my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and submitted that the claim petition was filed arising out of use of motor vehicle and the application of legal representatives of the deceased was maintainable before the Tribunal u/s 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives option to lay claims for compensation. Therefore, it is the election of the claimants u/s 167, which they elected, to claim compensation from the person who may be found to be a tortfeasor by the Tribunal. It is not open to the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the owner, driver and insurer on the basis of the liability created under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but the claimants would be entitled to get the entire amount of compensation for the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 7. In the case of Kishore v. Shahid Shah, the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that respondent No. 1 owned a tractor bearing registration No. MPN 7627, which is insured with respondent No. 2. 7. In the case of Kishore v. Shahid Shah, the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that respondent No. 1 owned a tractor bearing registration No. MPN 7627, which is insured with respondent No. 2. It was alleged that on 17.10.1999 respondent No. 1 brought his tractor to the field of the appellant, which was attached with thresher for the purpose of cutting soyabean crop lying in the field of appellant. It was alleged that while the thresher was in operation because of mechanical fault, right leg of the appellant was crushed from the joint of thigh and ultimately it was amputated. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. Learned single Bench of this court after considering various judgments of the High Courts as well as of Apex Court has held that since accident occurred when the offending vehicle was used for agricultural purpose, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. By holding that the tractor is not being plied on the road does not necessarily mean that an accident had not occurred arising out of use of motor vehicle. 8. In the case of Venkatesan Vs. M.K.V. Kandasamy Nadar and Others, (2011) ACJ 366, the victim was employed as a driver by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On 22.4.1996 the victim was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 04 A-2349 from Sethiathope to GST near Vikravandi. Two vehicles bearing registration No. TN 72-Z 7336 and TN 04-B 2529 were parked on the left and right side of the road without leaving any space in the middle of the road. While the victim was proceeding from south to north, due to the narrow space, he dashed against the two vehicles and due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries. It has been held by Madras High Court that the appellant is entitled to compensation even though he is termed to be a wrongdoer but he is entitled to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act and the Tribunal has got ample power to grant compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Madras High Court while dealing with the point observed thus: (8) In support of his contention he places reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kaliya Pillai, Thangam and N. Velu, (2003) ACJ 1021. Madras High Court while dealing with the point observed thus: (8) In support of his contention he places reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kaliya Pillai, Thangam and N. Velu, (2003) ACJ 1021. In the said case, the deceased was a tractor driver, who fell down from the tractor due to his own negligence while driving the tractor and died. The Tribunal held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. Challenging the said award, the insurance company preferred appeal before this court and the Division Bench, after having a detailed study of the subject on this point with reference to two Division Bench decisions of this court pronounced earlier, reached a conclusion that even though the insurance company could not be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, still the dependants of the deceased are entitled to get compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. The Division Bench taking note of the length of litigation, for the object of shortening the litigation and in the interest of justice, held that dependants have to be extended the benefit of Workmen's Compensation Act in the circumstances available. This court while dealing with the point has observed thus: 'It is well settled law that when the owner is not liable, the insurer cannot be held liable. Since the accident was caused only due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the tractor, we hold that the question of vicarious liability will not arise when the claim is made by the tortfeasor himself or any other persons claiming under the tortfeasor; accordingly the claim by the claimants is absolutely misconceived and they cannot claim any compensation from the owner of the vehicle; consequently, they also cannot make any claim against the appellant insurance company. However, the insurer's liability is to be determined not only with reference to the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, but also with reference to the contract of insurance which would extend to the liability of the insured under Workmen's Compensation Act. There is a specific finding by the Tribunal that deceased tractor driver died in the course of his employment. Further, it is not disputed that there was a valid insurance on the date of accident and accordingly the insurer was liable to the extent of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is a specific finding by the Tribunal that deceased tractor driver died in the course of his employment. Further, it is not disputed that there was a valid insurance on the date of accident and accordingly the insurer was liable to the extent of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In other words, we hold that even though the insurance company was not liable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, it would be proper to assess compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. In order to shorten the litigation and also in the interest of justice, we decide to dispose of the appeal by determining the appropriate compensation in favour of the claimants.' (10) Following the principle laid down in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kaliya Pillai, Thangam and N. Velu, (2003) ACJ 1021, it has to be necessarily held in this matter that the appellant is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even though he is termed to be a wrongdoer. The findings furnished by the Tribunal in its award on the factual aspects are proper and there is no necessity to interfere with the same. However, as adverted to already, he, under law, is entitled to receive compensation from the respondent No. 5. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Mayank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the insurance company, drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rashida Haroon Kupurade v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 721 (SC) and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 2661 (SC) and submitted that no liability can be fastened on the insurance company and learned Tribunal committed an error in not exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident deceased Keerti Singh was driving Fiat car bearing registration No. MP 11-B 1476 and deceased Mehtab was sitting in the said car. According to learned counsel for the insurance company, the vehicle was not involved in the accident and death of workman by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. 10. In the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Co. According to learned counsel for the insurance company, the vehicle was not involved in the accident and death of workman by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. 10. In the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 2661 (SC), Bapusab Nadaf and Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi were workmen engaged in uploading maize (food grain) from a tractor-trailer. When maize was being unloaded from the tractor to an underground storage bin (hagevu) both the labourers climbed the grocery pit in order to clean the same for storing maize and while cleaning they fell into the grocery pit. They shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a rope was released to them but they did not catch it and they died due to asphyxia. The Apex Court accepted the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company and held that insurance company cannot be held liable for the death of workmen and dismissed the appeal of the claimants. 11. In the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 2661 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paras 4, 7, 8 and 13 of the judgment held and observed as follows : (4) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the insurance company has clear responsibility for this accident and the insurance company is liable and under an obligation to pay compensation to the appellants. This contention is rebutted by the learned counsel for the insurance company. According to him, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. He further submitted that there has been no proximity or direct connection with the death of the workmen with the vehicle in any manner. At the time of the accident the vehicle was not in operation. (7) According to the reasoning of the High Court, the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the death of workmen by no stretch of imagination can be said to have any proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. The High Court also observed that the mere fact that maize was brought to the spot where the workmen had died in the insured vehicle, would not render the insurance company liable in respect of the death, the cause of which was not proximate to the actual user of the vehicle. The High Court also observed that the mere fact that maize was brought to the spot where the workmen had died in the insured vehicle, would not render the insurance company liable in respect of the death, the cause of which was not proximate to the actual user of the vehicle. (8) In the present case, the use of the vehicle was not even claimed as being a ground on which the liability is said to be fastened on the insurance company. (13) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, on a plain reading of the above quoted Explanation, the insurance company cannot be held liable for the death of the workmen and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the appellants. 12. In Rashida Haroon Kupurade, 2010 ACJ 721 (SC), the deceased workman had died of natural causes, namely, heart attack and no nexus between death and accident which had occurred six months prior to death. The Apex Court after appreciating the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has held that compensation would be payable only if the injuries were caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. There has to be an accident in order to attract the provisions of section 3 and such accident must have occurred during the course of workman's employment. It has been further held that there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the workman since the accident had occurred 6 months prior to his death. The Apex Court exonerated the insurance company and employer and observed that the order will not prevent the heirs of the deceased workman from taking recourse to any other legal remedy, if available to them. 13. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 416 , decided by the Apex Court on 7.1.2011 it was held : (2) In the early hours of 29.10.1987 a petrol tanker bearing registration No. MXL 7461 was proceeding on National Highway 4, coming from Pune side and going towards Bangalore. As it reached near village Kavathe, in the district of Satara, Maharashtra, a truck, bearing registration No. MEH 4197, laden with onions, was coming from the opposite direction. As it reached near village Kavathe, in the district of Satara, Maharashtra, a truck, bearing registration No. MEH 4197, laden with onions, was coming from the opposite direction. At that point where the two vehicles crossed each other, there was a pile of rubble on the left side of the road. As the two vehicles crossed each other, the rear right side of the petrol tanker was hit by the rear left side of the truck. As a result of the impact, the petrol tanker was thrown off the road and it came to rest on its left side/cleaner's side on the kacha ground, about 5 ft below the road. As a result of the collision and the falling down of the petrol tanker on its side, petrol started leaking from the tanker. The tanker driver was unable to stop the leak even though he tried to tighten the lid. The accident took place at around 3.15 a.m. Shortly after the accident, another tanker coming from Bombay side passed by. In that tanker, apart from the driver, there was also an officer of Indian Oil Company. Both of them assured the driver of the fallen down tanker that they would report the accident at the police station and asked him to wait near the place of the accident. Later on, yet another tanker from Sangli arrived at the spot and then the cleaner of the ill-fated tanker and the owner of the Sangli tanker together went to village Kavathe in search of a telephone to inform the tanker owner about the accident. After they came back from the village all of them, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker that had met with accident and the owner, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker coming from Sangli waited near the accident site. At daybreak, the local people started collecting near the fallen down tanker and some of them brought cans and tried to collect the petrol leaking out from the tanker. The driver of the tanker tried to stop them from collecting petrol or even going near the tanker, explaining to them that doing so would be risky and dangerous. No one, however, listened to him and he was even manhandled. In the melee, the petrol caught fire and there was a big explosion in which 46 persons lost their lives. The driver of the tanker tried to stop them from collecting petrol or even going near the tanker, explaining to them that doing so would be risky and dangerous. No one, however, listened to him and he was even manhandled. In the melee, the petrol caught fire and there was a big explosion in which 46 persons lost their lives. (3) The heirs and legal representatives of those people who died at the accident site filed claim petitions for compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the M.A.C.T., Satara, against the owner of the petrol tanker and its insurer, the present appellant. In all cases, claims were also made for payment of Rs. 15,000 as no fault compensation u/s 92-A of the Act. The owner of the tanker and the insurer (respondents before the Tribunal) contested the claim petitions filed by the applicants u/s 92-A of the and questioned the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that the fire and the explosion causing the death of those who had assembled at the accident site could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal upheld the objection raised by the insurer and the owner of the petrol tanker, and by a common order dated 2.12.1989, dismissed all the claim petitions filed u/s 92-A of the Act on the ground that the fire and the explosion could not be said to be accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and hence, the provisions of section 92-A of the Act were not attracted. Claims Tribunal pointed out that there was a time gap of about 4 hours between the tanker meeting with the road accident and the fire and explosion of the tanker and there was absolutely no connection between the road accident and the fire accident that took place about 4 hours later. The Claims Tribunal also observed that the local people were trying to steal petrol from the petrol tanker and the fire and the explosion were the result of their attempt to steal the petrol leaking out from the tanker. The Claims Tribunal also observed that the local people were trying to steal petrol from the petrol tanker and the fire and the explosion were the result of their attempt to steal the petrol leaking out from the tanker. In other words, it was the people who had assembled at the accident site and some of whom eventually died as a result of it who were responsible for causing the fire and explosion accident and the later accident had no causal connection with the earlier road accident of the tanker. The fire and the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of tanker. Against the order of the Claims Tribunal passed on 2.12.1989, appeals were filed before High Court. One such appeal was filed by Vatschala Uttam More, whose son Deepak Uttam More was one of the persons who died as a result of injuries caused by the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and by judgment dated 5.2.1990, reversed the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Against the decision of the single Judge, the owner of the petrol tanker and the insurance company filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 16.8.1990. (4) The owner of the petrol tanker and the insurance company then brought the matter to this court in SLP No. 14822 of 1990 challenging the judgment and the order of the High Court passed on 16.8.1990. The SLP was dismissed by this court by judgment and order passed on 17.7.1991. In this judgment, reported as Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 , the court considered at length, the questions whether the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker in which Deepak Uttam More lost his life could be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, namely, the petrol tanker. The court answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. 14. The Apex Court passed the order in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 , while deciding the application u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. 14. The Apex Court passed the order in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 , while deciding the application u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal dismissed all the claim cases vide judgment and order dated 31.7.1997. The matter went up to the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.1.2011 passed in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 416 , held that decision rendered in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (supra) was completely binding on the Claims Tribunal and it was not open to the Claims Tribunal to come to any finding inconsistent with the aforesaid decision of this court. Paras 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as follows : (14) After having considered each of the 3 limbs of Mr. Sanghi's arguments and having rejected all of them, the court, in para 37 of the judgment, held and observed as follows: (37) Was the accident involving explosion and the fire in the petrol tanker connected with the use of tanker as a motor vehicle? In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this question must be answered in the affirmative. The High Court has found that the tanker in question was carrying petrol which is a highly combustible and volatile material and after the collision with the other motor vehicle the tanker had fallen on one of its sides on the sloping ground resulting in escape of highly inflammable petrol and that there was grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol coming out of the tanker. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly concluded that the collision between the tanker and the other vehicle which had occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in the explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events and merely because there was interval of about four to four and a half hours between the said collision and the explosion and fire in the tanker, it cannot be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between the explosion and fire. In the circumstances, it must be held that the explosion and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death of Deepak Uttam More was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, viz., petrol tanker No. MKL 7461. (15) We have examined the evidence of the OWs adduced before the Claims Tribunal, in particular the depositions of Shivaji Patil, the owner of the petrol tanker, who examined himself as OW 1 and Dhondirama Mali, the driver of the ill-fated petrol tanker who was examined as OW 2. We have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. In the evidence of the OWs, there was no new material fact that wasn't already before this court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 , And on the basis of the evidence led by the opposite party, no new points were raised before Claims Tribunal, that can be said to have not been raised before this court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil (supra). The High Court was, therefore, justified in observing in para 26 of the judgment coming under appeal as follows: ...But whether the vehicle was in use or not was a question before the Supreme Court and even after evidence that aspect has not changed. Time at which the accident occurred, viz., catching the fire by the petrol has remained the same. The circumstances preceding this particular point have also remained the same. Time at which the accident occurred, viz., catching the fire by the petrol has remained the same. The circumstances preceding this particular point have also remained the same. The manner in which the petrol tanker came near the spot and how it was hit by a vehicle or truck coming from opposite direction also remained the same even after evidence and, therefore, when facts which were before the Supreme Court have not at all changed in spite of the full trial and evidence, the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be accepted and taken as a concluded judgment so far as the issue as to whether the vehicle was 'in use' or 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle', fully and concluding. Secondly, question before the Supreme Court was about the interpretation of the words 'arising out of use of motor vehicle'. The situation, namely, occurring explosion to the petrol tanker has not changed so far as this particular aspect is concerned... (16) In light of the discussions made above, it must be held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision rendered in Shivaji Dayanu Paul (supra) was completely binding on the Claims Tribunal and it was not open to the Claims Tribunal to come to any finding inconsistent with the aforesaid decision of this court. The issue framed by the High Court is answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased Keerti Singh died during the course of employment. 16. There is a specific finding of Tribunal that deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh died in the course of employment. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident, accordingly, the insurer is liable to bear liability under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Even if I hold that though the insurance company was not liable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act it would be appropriate to assess the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to shorten the litigation and also in the interest of justice, I decide to dispose of these appeals by determining the compensation in favour of claimants. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the claimants, has contended that the deceased Mehtab Bhil was working as a carpenter before his death in the year 1998 and his income was Rs. 100 per day, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month and submitted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate. Considering the statement of AW 1 and looking to the fact that deceased was working as carpenter, it can be safely assumed that he must be earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Keeping in mind the large family of the deceased, i.e., the widow, two sons, daughter and aged mother in all five persons. 1/4th of total income be deducted towards the amount which the deceased spent on himself and the multiplier of 15 would be applicable. After deducting 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased the total amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,05,000 (Rs. 2,250 x 12 x 15). Under the conventional heads additional lump sum amount of Rs. 55,000 is just and proper. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,60,000 with further stipulation that enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. 18. In the case of death of Kanji alias Keerti Singh, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that he was a bhumiswami of 5.93 hectares land and his father was also bhumiswami of 16.35 hectares of land. He also drew my attention to driving licence of deceased, Exh. D1, by which he was authorised to drive LMV and HM' At the time of accident he was 26 years of age. The learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing his income at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month. Taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record and also to the fact that deceased was an agriculturist and was having heavy and light motor vehicle driving licence, this court is of the view that he was comfortably earning Rs. 100 per day, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses, the amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,000 per month. At the time of death, the mother of the deceased (post-mortem report. Exh. P6) was between 40 and 45 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable. 100 per day, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses, the amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,000 per month. At the time of death, the mother of the deceased (post-mortem report. Exh. P6) was between 40 and 45 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable. On applying multiplier of 15 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,60,000 (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 15). The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 under the head of loss of love and affection, i.e., Rs. 10,000 to each of the claimants, who are major brother and mother of deceased. Apart from that the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 under various conventional heads. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,15,000 (Rs. 3,60,000 + Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 15,000) with further stipulation that the enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. 19. For the above-mentioned reasons this court is of the view that claimants are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even though he is termed to be a wrongdoer. The Claims Tribunal has not committed any legal error in awarding compensation and holding the insurer liable to indemnify the award. In the result, M.A. No. 1083 of 2006, filed by the legal heirs of deceased Mehtab and M.A. No. 3429 of 2005 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kanji alias Keerti Singh are partly allowed and the amount of compensation is accordingly enhanced. M.A. Nos. 3504 and 3505 of 2005 filed by insurance company have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.