Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 750 (MP)

Deepak v. Hemendra

2019-11-02

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimants challenging the award dated 30.3.2019 passed by MACT, Badwani in Claims Case No. 58/2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal. 2. The appellants/claimants had filed the claim petition before the tribunal with the plea that on 18.2.2018, the deceased Himanshu alongwith Akhilesh Bhawsar was going in the motorcycle as pillion rider, when the accident was caused by the truck No. GJ-1-CV/7093 driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 in which Himanshu had received grievous injuries and had died on the spot. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 by filing the reply had denied the liability and raised the plea that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. The respondent No. 3/Insurance Company had also filed the reply by taking a plea of violation of the policy condition. 4. The tribunal had permitted the parties to lead evidence and after examining the evidence has found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck No. GJ-1-CV/7093 by respondent No. 1 in which Himanshu had received injuries and had died. The Tribunal further found that there was no contributory negligence and there was no violation of the policy condition and accordingly fastened the liability upon the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. The tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 16 years and 9 months and the age of the mother of the deceased between 46-50 years and the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-. Tribunal deducted ½ towards self expenses because the deceased was un-married and applied the multiplier of 13 on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 4,68,000/-. The tribunal awarded further Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of future prospects and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate. Hence, the tribunal passed an award of Rs. 6,85,200/- alongwith interest @7% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the adequate compensation amount and the amount awarded by the tribunal under the different heads is on the lower side. Hence, the tribunal passed an award of Rs. 6,85,200/- alongwith interest @7% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the adequate compensation amount and the amount awarded by the tribunal under the different heads is on the lower side. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the notional income of the deceased and also deducting ½ towards the self expenses, but the tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased whereas in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased was required to be applied. The age of the deceased was found to be 16 years and 9 months therefore, in terms of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 applicable multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased would be 18. 8. Hence, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,000/- X 18+40% = Rs. 9,07,200/-. In addition to this, the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the other heads, as already awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 9,37,200/-, whereas the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,85,200/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled to further sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- over and above the amount which has already been awarded by the tribunal. 9. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount awarded by the tribunal is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,52,000/-. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the tribunal and will be governed by the same conditions as contained in the award of the tribunal. No costs.