Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 539 (MP)

Munni Bai v. Ramnath Singh

2011-05-05

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
ORDER 1. Appellants-claimants have come forward with this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in short "The Act" for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. OS/2005, vide award dated 31.1.2006, whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Shri Suresh Kumar Baghel, aged about 37 years in the alleged motor accident has been awarded against the respondents by saddling their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 6,52,000with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 12.5.2005. 2. The appellants herein filed their claim contending that Suresh Kumar Baghel, aged 37 years, the husband of the appellant No. 1, while the father of appellants No.2 to 6 and the son of appellant No.7 and son in law of appellants No.8 and 9, had died in the alleged vehicular accident happened on dated 10.2.2004, which was the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. M.P.-06/B-1527 by respondent No. 1. Such offending vehicle was duly registered in the name of respondent No.2, while the same was insured with respondent No.3. As per further averments the deceased being Advocate was practising in the different Courts of Morena District and out of such profession he was earning near about Rs. 16,000/- per month. Due to his untimely death in the alleged accident, the appellants have been deprived from their dependency and in such premises, the impugned claim was filed for the compensation of sum of Rs. 9 1,90,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.. Along with the claim petition the certified copy of some papers of the criminal case registered with respect of the alleged accident and the postmortem report of the deceased are also placed on record. 3. On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 after giving appearance, they have filed their reply in which the factum of the alleged accident was denied. In addition it is stated that the alleged accident was cause and consequence of negligent riding of motor cycle by the deceased, hence the liability of the' impugned claim could not be saddled against them. In any case the impugned case should be considered to be the case of contributory negligence. In addition it is stated that the alleged accident was cause and consequence of negligent riding of motor cycle by the deceased, hence the liability of the' impugned claim could not be saddled against them. In any case the impugned case should be considered to be the case of contributory negligence. It is further stated that on holding any liability against these respondents, the same be saddled against respondent No.3-Insurer as the offending vehicle was duly insured with it. 4. In reply of respondent No.3 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased himself was riding the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and due to that he met the accident. Thereafter under the wrong premises the criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 did not possess the valid and effective driving licence and in such premises the offending vehicle was plied contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, no liability of the impugned claim could be saddled against the respondent No.3 and prayed for exonerating such respondent to indemnify the liability of the impugned claim. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same holding that Shri Suresh Kumar Baghel died due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending Marshal Jeep by respondent No. 1, the claim of the appellants have been awarded against the respondent for the sum, as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such award, the appellants have come forward to this Court with this appeal. 6. Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants by referring the pleadings, available evidence and the exhibited documents from the record of the Tribunal said that the income of the deceased was not taken into consideration in accordance with the available evidence and the compensation was assessed taking into consideration the income of the deceased only @ Rs. 8000/- per month, at very lower side while he was earning Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs. 16,000/- per month. 8000/- per month, at very lower side while he was earning Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs. 16,000/- per month. He further said that in view of the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th sum out of the income of the deceased for the expenses of the deceased, which he would have spent on him, had he been alive but contrary to such direction of the Supreme Court, 50% sum in this regard was deducted by the Tribunal. He also said that instead of the multiplier IS, the 16 should have been applied by the Tribunal. With these submissions he prayed for further reasonable enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 7. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3- Insurer saying that the approach of the tribunal in awarding the sum stated in the impugned award is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also in conformity with law. It does not require any interference for any enhancement at the stage of the appeal. According to him in the available facts and circumstances of the matter the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, after perusing the record along with the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that the sum awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants is at lower side and contrary to the principle laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid matter of Sarla Verma (supra), cited on behalf of appellants. In the lack of any appeal at the instance of any of the respondents, this appeal does not require any reconsideration on the findings of the Tribunal holding the alleged accident was caused and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 and sadling joint and several liability to indemnify the awarded sum against the respondents. In the available circumstances, such findings of the Tribunal are binding against the parties at this stage. In the available circumstances, such findings of the Tribunal are binding against the parties at this stage. So far further enhancement in the sum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in view of available evidence, keeping in view the principle laid down by the apex Court, in the matter of "Sarla Verma" (supra), I deem fit to re-assess the sum of compensation for it's futher enhancement. 9. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, after going through the evidence laid by them, on re-appreication of the same, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in taking into consideration the income of the deceased @ Rs. 8000/- per month. As the deceased being an Advocate was practing in the various courts of District Murena, but J have not found any document showing that the deceased was the Income Tax Payer. In the lack of such evidence, the income assessed by the tribunal coult not be deemd to be at lowerside, hene the findings of the impugned award in this regard is hereby affirmed. 10. In the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), for deduction of the amount with respect of the expenses of the deceased, which he would have spent on him, had he been alive, some observation are made. The same is read as under ;- 14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculatd on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chjandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth 1/4)th where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six." 11. Keeping in view the number of dependent persons on the deceased in the case at hand, i.e. nine, the tribunal did not have any authority to deduct the sum more than 1/5th from the annual income of the deceased with respect of the expenses of such deceased, which he would have spent on him, had he been alive, but it is apparent fact from the impugned award that in such account, the 1/3rd sum has been deducted by the tribunal, hence such findings of the tribunal being contrary to law, same is hereby set aside with a direction to deduct 1/5th sum on the aforesaid head from the income of the deceased. In the aforesaid premises, taking into consideration the income of the deceased @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. Then his annual income comes to Rs. 8,000x 12=96,000, out of it on deducting 1/5th sum with respect of the expenses of the deceased, as stated above, then the annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased comes to Rs. 96,000-19,200=76,800/-. 12. Although appellants counsel has argued the matter to assess the total dependency and compensation by adopting the multiplier of 16, provided in IInd Schedule, enacted under section 163A of the Act, but I am not with the agreement of such counsel in this regard, because in the aforesaid case of Sarla Verma, (supra) taking into consideration the provision of Section 166, the following principles are laid down by the apex Court to apply the multiplier in the claim cases :- "21. We. !herefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years. M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-1 5 for 36 to 40 years, M. 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M. 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 13. According to settled principle, after deducting the sum on the head of the expenses of the deceased, the Court is bound to apply the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased. Thus, keeping in view the age of the deceased, i.e. 37 years as held by the tribunal, in view of aforesaid dictum, the multiplier of 15 is applied to the case at hand. On applying the same, the total dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 76,800x 15= 11,52,000. The same is awarded. Besides this the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 20,000/- on the conventional head, like funeral expenses, expectancy of life, loss of the estate and also the appellant No. 1 with respect of depriving the company of her husband for the whole a remaining life. The same is also awarded. 14. In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal in part, the sum awarded by the tribunal, i.e., Rs. 6,52,000/- is enhanced from such amount upto Rs. 11,72,000/-, as discussed above. The enhanced sum shall also follow the interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability to indemnify such enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, as also held by the Tribunal. Till this extent the impugned award of the tribunal is hereby modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.