Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 799 (MP)

Sharbati Bai v. Janrail Singh

2012-08-16

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 14.3.2012, passed by MACT, Barwani, in claim case No. 93/2011. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total of Rs. 4,76,500/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Guddu Singh alias Jasbeer Singh, who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants’ favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 14.2.2011, Guddu alias Jasbeer Singh aged 30 years, met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,76,500/-, breakup of which is as under :- Rs. 4,32,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,000/- Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards consortium. Rs. 35,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,500/- Towards loss of estate. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that income assessed is on lower side and the multiplier is also on lower side. It is submitted that the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4,32,000/- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,000/- Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards consortium. Rs. 35,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 2,500/- Towards loss of estate. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that income assessed is on lower side and the multiplier is also on lower side. It is submitted that the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. It is prayed that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that amount awarded is just and proper and no case of further enhancement is made out. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record, and keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in the year 2011, this Court is of view that income assessed by the Tribunal ought ot have been Rs. 4,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 3,000/-. Similarly the dependency ought to have been 1/3 instead of 1/4 and the multiplier ought to have been applied of 17 instead of 16. In view of this, appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs. 2,21,000/-. 7. Thus, appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,97,500/- instead of Rs. 4,76,500/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be distributed between the legal representatives of the deceased as directed by the learned Tribunal. 8. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the Learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances such as educational and marital needs of appellant Nos. 2 and 6, if made out by the appellant No. 1. 9. This order shall be executable only upon payment of proportionate court fee on the enhanced amount. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the Learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances such as educational and marital needs of appellant Nos. 2 and 6, if made out by the appellant No. 1. 9. This order shall be executable only upon payment of proportionate court fee on the enhanced amount. The cost shall be borne by the respondents. 10. With the aforesaid modifications the appeal stands disposed of.