Sagarbai and Others vs Parmanand and Others

Shambhoo Singh, J.—This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 26.11.1994 passed by 1st M.A.G.T. Dhar in Claim Case No. 65/92 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,37,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application was awarded.

The appellants'' case was that on 17.7.1992 the deceased Rameshchand Mali, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 8, was travelling in the jeep belonging to Forest Department alongwith S.D.O. and other officials. When this jeep was ascending in Bherughat, respondent No. 1 came from opposite side driving truck No. MP. 11/3891 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which Rameshchand Mali sustained injuries and died on the spot. The appellants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The respondents contested the claim and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the truck and jeep drivers both. He apportioned 80% negligence to the truck driver and 20% to jeep driver and awarded compensation as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. The Insurance Company filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22.

Mr. Hardiya, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the jeep driver was also negligent. He further submitted that the Tribunal also committed error in reducing the award amount by 20%. He further contended that the Tribunal fell in error in determining the dependency. On the other hand, Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. He also prayed that the amount of compensation is on higher side.

We considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and perused the record. In view of the evidence of Rameshchand (C.W. 1), the driver of the jeep and Dinesh Agrawal (C.W. 4), Asstt. Conservator of Forest, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. The apportionment of negligence also cannot be said to be faulty.

Now we come to the question of adequacy of compensation amount. The deceased was Forest-guard in Forest Department. Vijay Kumar Saxena deposed that the pay of the deceased was Rs. 1,617/- per month and after necessary deductions he was getting Rs. 1,386/- per month. In our opinion, looking to the fact that the deceased was permanent Government servant, he must be earning yearly increments. Under such circumstances, taking in view the future prospects, we assess his monthly income at Rs. 1,800/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the family comes to Rs. 1,200/- and Rs. 14,400/- per year. The age of the deceased has been determined to be 37-38 years. In view of this, multiplier of 16 is selected. By multiplying it with the multiplicand (14,400 x 16), the amount comes to Rs. 2,30,400/-. Appellant No. 1 is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and rest of the appellants are entitled the same amount for loss of love and affection. This amount comes to Rs. 40,000/-. On addition of this, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,70,400/-. It is rounded up to Rs. 2,70/500/-. The appellants shall also receive interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of application; Respondent No. 3 is free to recover 20% of this amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the jeep owner.

The appeal is partly allowed with cost. Counsel fee is fixed Rs. 1,000/- if certified. The cross-objections filed by Insurance Company are without substance and they are dismissed accordingly.