Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 74 (MP)

NARMADA PRASAD CHOURE v. NANAKRAM PAVAR

2012-01-16

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Assailing the award dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad in Claim Case No. 44 of 2010 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants had filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,97,800 on account of death of deceased Rukmani Bai Choure alias Guddi Bai in an accident that took place on 15.1.2010. It was pleaded by the claimants, i.e., husband and children of the deceased that the earning member of the family has died in the accident having her earnings from sewing and tailoring, however the compensation as prayed for in the claim petition may be awarded. 2. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the total dependency of Rs. 9,79,200 accepting the earnings of the deceased as Rs.57,600 per annum applying the multiplier of 17. In view of the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 40:60, after deducting 40 per cent towards contributory negligence the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,87,520 towards total loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further added Rs. 15,000 in conventional heads making the total payable compensation Rs. 6,02,520. 3. Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that the finding of contributory negligence so recorded by the Tribunal because the deceased was sitting as pillion rider but three persons on motor cycle were dashed from behind by the truck, is illegal which is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by him that after setting aside such finding the compensation in total calculated by the Tribunal may be awarded. On conventional heads the amount awarded is inadequate which may further be enhanced reasonably. 4. Per contra Mr. Lamba, learned counsel representing the insurance company, contends that the cross-objection has been filed on the point of quantum stating the fact that the earnings of the deceased so accepted is on higher side, however the compensation may be reasonably reduced. It is submitted by him that in the case of aanganwadi sahayika the earning was Rs. 1,200 per month, however in such a case by sewing the clothes she cannot earn Rs. 200 per day as calculated by Claims Tribunal. It is submitted by him that in the case of aanganwadi sahayika the earning was Rs. 1,200 per month, however in such a case by sewing the clothes she cannot earn Rs. 200 per day as calculated by Claims Tribunal. It is also submitted by him that the finding of contributory negligence has rightly been recorded by Claims Tribunal, therefore such finding may be maintained and the compensation may be reasonably reduced allowing the cross-objection. 5. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that on 15.1.2010 when the deceased was sitting as pillion rider on a motor cycle it was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. MH 31-CB 2835 from behind. Even if three persons were sitting on a motor cycle but as per the judgment of Full Bench of this court in the case of Devi Singh Vs. Vikram Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 393, the finding of contributory negligence is unsustainable in law, therefore it is hereby set aside. 6. Now coming to the point of quantum, it is seen that deceased was aanganwadi sahayika, however her earnings cannot be accepted more than the payment so received by way of honorarium and other allowances by her. The earnings of the deceased can safely be accepted as Rs. 3,500 per month which annually comes to Rs. 42,000 and if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses looking to the number of dependants then the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 31,500 per annum. If it is multiplied by 16 looking to the age of the deceased then the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,04,000. If Rs. 25,000 is further added in the conventional heads then the total sum comes to Rs. 5,29,000. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,02,520. If we deduct the amount calculated hereinabove by this court from the said amount then the net amount which is liable to be reduced comes to Rs. 73,520. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent of setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and by enhancing some amount under conventional heads. Simultaneously, the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is also allowed. 73,520. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part to the extent of setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and by enhancing some amount under conventional heads. Simultaneously, the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is also allowed. In view of the calculation made hereinabove, even on setting aside the finding of contributory negligence the amount so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be reduced to the extent of Rs. 73,520. Thus, the net amount payable to the claimant comes to Rs. 5,29,000 in view of the directions issued by the Claims Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.