High CourtsSingle Bench

Shyamlal & Others vs Jairathan And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 28 February 2019 · Citation: (2019) 02 MP CK 0102

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rohit Arya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1744 Of 2016
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

30 paragraphs · 845 words

Rohit Arya, J

The miscellaneous appeal under section 173(I) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')is directed against the award dated 07.04.2016 passed in claim case No.20/2016 by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Indore.

2.

Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: on 30.11.2013, the deceased while going on motorcycle alongwith her family members from Village Nandgaon to their village Ameli met with an accident on Bhopal-Indore Road near Village Rala due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. as the over speedy Truck bearing No. TN 56 C 2862 hit them, as a result, the deceased suffered grievous injuries on various parts of the body and died on the spot.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that at the time of incident, the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- p.m by working as labourer. Because of the incident, she met untimely death . The family also suffered the loss of love and affection of the deceased.

4.

The claimants/appellants have challenged the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the premise that the compensation awarded is meager and on the lower side on various heads and even future prospects of the deceased have not been awarded appropriately. Hence, the compensation has to be enhanced.

5.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. On merits, it is submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is called for. Hence the liability is not disputed. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6.

It is established from the material available on record that the accident took place by the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent /Insurance Company. The deceased suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question and died on the spot.

7.

The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the claimants is as to whether the tribunal was justified awarding Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs.25,000/- funeral expenses, Rs.30,000 and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium .; total compensation of Rs.3,05,000/-.

8.

Having gone through the impugned award and looking to the fact that deceased was 50 years of age on the date of accident, loss of earning/dependency and her future prospects have not been assessed properly. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately.

9.

Heard.

10.

The finding of the tribunal as regards earning of the deceased as determined is totally perverse and absolutely unreasonable. In the obtaining facts and circumstances as the deceased was supporting her family by earning, the income of deceased is assessed as Rs.4,000/- per month. The tribunal has not awarded under the head 'future prospects'. Hence, the amount of compensation has to be awarded under the said head Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 ACJ 2700 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others and the age of the deceased as 50 years, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- (including future prospects)x 12 = 60,000/- (after deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses), it comes to Rs.40,000/-(60,000-20,000). Hence, the multiplier '11' is appropriate multiplier;(applied on the basis of age mentioned in the voter I.D. card) Rs.40,000/- x 11 = total dependency comes to Rs.4,40,000/-.

11.

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the heads as follows:

(i) towards loss of earning :

Rs. 1,80,000/-

(ii) towards funeral expenses :

Rs. 25,000/-

(iii) towards consortium :

Rs. 1,00,000/-

Total

Rs.3,05,000/-

12.

Bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and to meet the ends of justice, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is substituted and the claimants are entitled for just compensation as follows:

(i) towards loss of earning[including future prospects] :

Rs.4,40,000/-

(ii)towards other conventional heads :

70,000/-

Total

Rs. 5,10,000/-

13.

As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is from Rs 3,05,000- to Rs. 5,10,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,05,000/-shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact.

14.

If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee(if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks' from today and proof thereof shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.

15.

Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of.