High CourtsDivision Bench

Shyamabai and Others vs Laxman and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 24 November 1997 · Citation: (1999) ACJ 1415

HON’BLE JUDGES
Usha Shukla, J · S.K. Dubey, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.A. No. 109 of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 510 words

S.K. Dubey, J.—This appeal is by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 140 of 1993, vide award dated 27.11.1995, passed by the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mud-wara, Katni, Jabalpur.

2.

The circumstances in which the accident occurred on 24.5.1985 by truck No. MBJ 3791, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, which caused the death of Santosh, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to negligence of the truck driver is not under challenge. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 as an insurer has suffered the award by deposit of the compensation determined.

3.

The Tribunal, for determining the compensation, has taken into consideration the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs. 400, and after deducting Rs. 100 per month for the expenses of the deceased, estimated the dependency at Rs. 300 per month, yearly Rs. 3,600, to which applying a multiplier of 15, the amount was worked out to Rs. 54,000. To that, Rs. 1,000 was added towards funeral expenses. Thus a total amount of Rs. 55,000 was awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, till realisation.

4.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the compensation determined is not just and fair. The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 30 years and was hale and hearty, on whom his wife aged about 28 years and 3 minor children were dependent. He was manufacturing chatais and tokris. Therefore, even if he is considered to be an unskilled labourer, his earning cannot be less than Rs. 25 per day, total Rs. 750 per month. From that, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The dependency would come to Rs. 500 per month, yearly Rs. 6,000, to which applying a multiplier of 15, the amount would work out to Rs. 90,000. In this Rs. 10,000 is added towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. The total would come to Rs. 1,02,000, which the appellants are entitled to get with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 11.6.1990 till realisation.

5.

As respondent No. 3 has suffered the award, the respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited, within a period of 2 months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the appellants keeping in mind the well settled guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted as indicated herein. Counsel''s fee Rs. 750, if pre-certified.