Smt. Snehlata Sharma and Others vs Mohammad Ali and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Claim Case No. 53/89, dated 7-4-1992.

On 26-1-1989, at about 12.50 a.m., deceased was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MIJ 938 when car bearing registration No. MBJ 1862, owned by respondent No. 2 Dr. P.T. Liao and driven by respondent No. 1 Mohammad Ali Mahe, coming at fast speed from the opposite direction at Nagrath Chowk, collided with the scooter. Due to this accident, the victim received serious injuries resulting in his death at Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. FIR was lodged at Police Station, Omti. The car was insured with respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Claimants are widow, daughter and son of the deceased. It is submitted that at the time of accident, deceased was employed as Assistant Station Master, Jabalpur, in the Central Railways. At the time of accident, he was drawing Rs. 3,000.00 p.m. Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000.00 was claimed. However, compensation of Rs. 1,44,000.00 carrying interest at the rate of 12% p.a. has been awarded. Claimants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the award is excessively low and deserves to be enhanced. It is also submitted that low multiplier has been applied and dependency has not been properly assessed. That apart, the award has not been properly disbursed. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., submits that the award is quite reasonable and justified on the facts of this case and that liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 50,000.00. Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 Dr. P.T. Liao, submits that liability is completely of respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, award is liable to be set aside to this extent.

Deceased was 40 years and 16 days old at the relevant time and was earning Rs. 2511.00 p.m. as per salary certificate (Annexure A-1). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, dependency comes to around Rs. 1700.00 and yearly to Rs. 20,400.00. In this case, proper multiplier should be 15 instead of 12 used by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation awardable in this case comes to (1700 x 12 x 15) = Rs. 3,06,000.00. To this amount would be added Rs. 5,000.00 for consortium and Rs. 2,000.00 for funeral expenses, taking the total to Rs. 3,13,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation.

Now the question is as to who should pay this amount ? We find that the Insurance Company has not taken the plea that its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000.00 as contended by Shri H.B. Agrawal. It has been stated by way of additional plea that its liability is as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This statement does not specify the exact amount for which the Insurance Company is liable. Policy of Insurance has not been placed on record, therefore, it has not been proved. The defence so taken is not proved. Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the whole amount of compensation awarded in this case. Contention to the contrary is liable to be rejected.

Last question is about the payment of compensation to the claimants. Smt. Snehlata (37) is the widow of the deceased. Although she is employed, she is entitled to compensation on account of death of her husband. Other two claimants are Kumari Smita Sharma (13) and Lovly (7), daughter and son of the deceased. We direct the disbursement of the amount as follows:

(i) Smt. Snehlata Sharma 50 %

(ii) Ku. Smita Sharma 25%

(iii) Lovly 25%

The children are minor, therefore, the compensation awarded to them be invested in any Nationalised Bank till they attain majority or proper permission is sought from Court for releasing the amount.

Costs on parties.