Ram Lal and Others vs Manoj and Others

Being aggrieved by the award passed on 26-7-2000 in Claim Case 58/1998 by A.M.A.C.T,, Wara Seoni, the applicants/appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988).

The case of the appellants in the Tribunal was that the deceased Sadaram was uncle of the appellants who used to reside with them. He left no heirs before his death. He was an agriculturist, having an income of Rs. 60,000/-per annum. On 7- 4-1996 the deceased while crossing the road in Lalbarra met with an accident and died. The Truck No. B.H.N. 5060 was owned by non-appellant No. 2 which was insured with the non-appellant No, 3 on the relevant date and was driven by non-appellant No. 1. The driver drove the truck rashly or negligently and dashed the deceased. Criminal case was also registered which was pending in the Magisterial Court. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/-which was rejected by the Tribunal.

The non-applicants No. 1 and 2 remained exparte in the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company (non-appellant No. 3) opposed the claim of the claimants and alleged that the appellants were not dependant on the deceased and are not entitled to any compensation.

The evidence of Bhuwanlal (applicant No. 2 / A.W. 1) is un-rebutted. It is amply proved that the deceased used to live with the applicants and used to share his income with them. The deceased had left no heirs at the time of death. Thus, being the only nephews they are legal heirs of the deceased and hence, are entitled to compensation. It is not uncommon that deceased was living together, he must have been spent some amount on applicants. But there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the witness, applicant Bhawanilal.

In this respect, reference can be made to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, , in which it was held that:--

Brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition u/s 110A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. In an Indian Family brothers, sisters and brother''s children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependant upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no jsutification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which has been susbtantially modified by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents.

So far as the earnings of the deceased are concerned, there is no evidence on record to estimate his income. However, since he was an agriculturist, his income can be estiamted to the tune of Rs. 3200/- per month. Thus, deducting his 1/2 (half) income as expenditure on himself, it can be assumed that the deceased used to spend income Rs. 1600/- per month on the applicants. Since the deceased was of 50 years of age, multiplier of 11 is adopted. Therefore, the total compensation should be Rs. 2,11,200/-. In addition to it, the applicants are entitled to formal general damages as under :--

(i) Funeral expenses -- Rs. 2000/- (ii) Loss of estate -- Rs. 2500/-

Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled is 2,11,200 + 4500 = Rs. 2,15,700/-.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is ordered that the appellants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,15,700/- in all with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (6% per annum) from the date of filing of the application, that is from 4-9-96 till the date of recovery. All the non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount under award. Looking to the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.