Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 701 (MP)

Sitaram Singh Bhadauriya v. Sabuddin

2018-08-13

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 26.8.2006 passed by Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 1/2006. 2. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,50,500/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Shivnandansingh, aged about 20 years who died in vehicle accident on 5.8.2005. According to claimants (parents and brother), the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. 3. 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 ? 4. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 5.8.2005 when deceased alongwith his friend Deepak Singha were returning from Takenpur to Gwalior for tuition on motorcycle M.P. 07-KE 8560 and reached near Avtar Hotel at Gwalior Jhanshi Raod, driver of offending vehicle Truck M.P.06-E2053 by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, due to which deceased sustained grievous hurts and died on spot. Claimants therefore, filed (Sitaram Singh Bhadauriya and ors. v. Sabuddin and anr.) claim case before the Claims Tribunal. 5. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after assessing income of deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15 (on the basis of age of his mother) and holding that he was spending 1/3 on himself as personal expenses, by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,500/- breakup of which is as under : Towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,40,000/- Towards conventional heads Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,50,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was son of the appellants No. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant No. 3. He used to earn the money and spent it to meet the expenses of the family by tuition. Due to his death, the family suffered great monetary loss. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,50,000/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was son of the appellants No. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant No. 3. He used to earn the money and spent it to meet the expenses of the family by tuition. Due to his death, the family suffered great monetary loss. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned tribunal assessed the yearly income of the deceased @ Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 15. It is submitted that the income of the deceased so assessed is on the lower side as deceased was a brilliant student and was earning Rs. 10,000 to 20,000/- by tuition. It is further submitted that Tribunal has not awarded any sum as regarding future prospects, whereas, as per the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors. [ 2018(1) JLJ 200 (SC)= 2017 ACJ 2700 and Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and ors., 2018 ACJ 5], minimum 40 per (Sitaram Singh Bhadauriya and ors. v. Sabuddin and anr.) cent of income has to be awarded for future prospects. It is submitted that deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of death, therefore, Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 15 as per the age of mother of deceased, whereas same has to be purely on the basis of age of deceased in light of decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of M.Mansoor and anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and anr. [ (2013) 15 SCC 603 ]. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper and do not deserve any enhancement. He supported the impugned award. 8. Having gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants and after taking into consideration available evidence on record, the amount awarded by the tribunal appears to be on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced. Keeping in view the fact that accident occurred in year 2005 and the fact that deceased used to provide tuition service to students, the monthly income of deceased can easily be assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and by adding Rs. Keeping in view the fact that accident occurred in year 2005 and the fact that deceased used to provide tuition service to students, the monthly income of deceased can easily be assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and by adding Rs. 500/- towards 40% of future prospects in light of decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Hem Raj (supra), and the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,000/- and deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses (as has been applied by the Tribunal) and applying the multiplier of 18 (in light of decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of M.Mansoor (supra), the total loss of (Sitaram Singh Bhadauriya and ors. v.. Sabuddin and anr.) dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (36000 x 1/3 =12,000, 36,000-12,000= 24,000 x 18= 4,32,000). The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under conventional heads also appears to be on the lower side, therefore, Rs. 70,000/- in lump sum is awarded to the claimants under the conventional heads. Thus, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 5,02,000/- and an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,51,500/- (5,02,000– 2,50,500/-). 9. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellants are held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,51,500/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of award shall not carry any interest however, if respondents failed to make the payment of compensation jointly and severely within a period of two months from today, then the enhanced amount of award shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 10. The instant appeal is allowed in part, accordingly. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.