Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Suraiya Haji and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—Through this appeal, award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa, in Claim Case No. 54 of 1991, dated 8.4.1994, is challenged by the appellant on two grounds, namely, compensation is excessive and higher multiplier is used for assessment thereof, while through cross-objections enhancement of compensation is sought.

Briefly, it may be stated that the accident took place on 1.4.1991 when Itrat Hussain (deceased) was going on his motor-cycle No. MP 12-4312 from Khandwa to Ghatakhedi. Jeep No. MP 09-4847, driven rashly and negligently by Manish Kumar, owned by Bhopal Motors Private Ltd., insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., hit the motor-cycle resulting in instantaneous death of Itrat Hussain. The deceased was Manager in Azad Poultry Farm, Khandwa, earning a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Compensation of Rs. 11,05,000/- is claimed.

Respondents have denied the allegations. However, the Claims Tribunal holds that the accident took place as alleged and the deceased died in this accident. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- is awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

Mr. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that income of the deceased has not been properly considered, nor appropriate multiplier applied. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain, learned Counsel for the surviving claimant Suraiya Haji, submits that the Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the commission income of the deceased and, therefore, dependency has not been properly worked out.

Giving consideration to the matter, we find that deceased was Manager with Azad Poultry Farm, Khandwa. Zia-ul-Hasan, A.W. 5, is the owner of the poultry farm. He states that initially the deceased was being paid Rs. 1,000/- but later it was increased to Rs. 2,000/- per month. He has produced the books of accounts also. This means that at the time of the accident, the deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Suraiya Haji, A.W. 2, states that in all, deceased was giving Rs. 2,000/- to the family every month. Azim Hasan, A.W. 7, states that deceased used to be paid commission on sale of eggs. He has maintained accounts for this purpose. According to this witness, the deceased was given Rs. 1,200-1,500/- per month as commission. He has filed account books to prove the statement. From the statement of Suraiya Haji, it is clear that the family was being given Rs. 2,000/- per month by the deceased. Therefore, he may be spending the amount of commission on himself.

Consequently, the dependency is worked out at Rs. 2,000/- which was being paid to the family every month. Accordingly, the annual dependency is Rs. 24,000/-. At the time of accident, deceased was 30 years old. Therefore, suitable multiplier in this case should be 18. Consequently, compensation is worked out to Rs. 4,32,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500/- for loss to estate, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses.

Consequently, the award is modified and cross-objection is allowed. Suraiya Haji is awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,43,500/- payable by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the offending vehicle was insured, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, on enhanced compensation from the date of application till date of payment.

Costs on parties.