High CourtsDivision Bench

Suman Vyas and Others vs Jagjeet Singh and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 January 1999 · Citation: (2001) 2 ACC 752

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shambhoo Singh, J · Bashir Ahmed Khan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163
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

4 paragraphs · 349 words

B.A. Khan and Shambhoo Singh, JJ.—One Avnish Kumar Vyas was travelling in a Maruti car which was hit by a truck and he died in the accident. His claimants filed Claim Case No. 25 of 1996 and Additional M.A.C.T., Kukshi, District Dhar, awarded them only Rs. 1,70,000/- even though the compensation amount was determined at Rs. 3,12,000/-. The deduction was made on account of the direction to make lumpsum payment to claimants and also because they were receiving pension and insurance amount of the deceased.

2.

Claimants have filed this appeal for the enhancement of compensation on the ground that Tribunal had applied an anadequate multiplier of 13 and that it could not have reduced the award to Rs. 1,70,000/- because of lumpsum payment ordered and the pension and insurance amount received by them. According to them age of the deceased was 43 years and multiplier applied should have been 15 instead of 13 as per the Schedule appended to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that Tribunal had worked out the deendency of Rs. 2,000/-wrongly once the salary of the deceased teacher was proved to be Rs. 3,253/- p.m.

3.

Record shows that there is some dispute about the age of the deceased and Tribunal had fixed it at 46 years on the basis of the post-mortem report. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference as regards the multiplier of 13 applied by it. The same holds true about the determination of the dependency which has been done in the light of the evidence on record. But, there is no justification for deduction of compensation amount determined on account of lumpsum payment having been ordered to the claimants or for the pension and insurance amount received by them. The Tribunal appears to have fallen in error in reducing the award on that account.

4.

We accordingly maintain the award of compensation of Rs. 3,12,000/-with interest at quashing the direction about deduction in it and the award shall modify accordingly and respondent Company to satisfy it within three months from the date of this order.