Ugam Bai and Another vs Ravi Shanker Yadav and Others

S.K. Dubey, J.

This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ''the Act'') for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 25.7.1991, passed in Claim Case No. 116 of 1990 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni.

Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are parents and appellant No. 3 is the brother of the deceased Dilip Kumar, aged 2.2 years, who died in motor accident on 23.7.1988, when he was driving his taxi Maruti Deluxe car on the National Highway, which was dashed by truck No. CIK 8555, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the truck driver and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,800 after applying the multiplier of 12 into the multiplicand of Rs. 700 per month, yearly Rs. 8,400. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, that is, 20.1.1989 was awarded till realisation.

The respondent No. 3, the insurer, has suffered the award.

Mr. Ashok Chakravarty for the appellants and Mr. N.S. Ruprah, counsel for respondent No. 3, heard.

In this case, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the appellant No. 3, Sushil Kumar, the brother, though it has come in evidence that he was residing in village with his parents and his eyesight is weak. It has also come in evidence that the deceased out of the earnings was sending Rs. 700 per month. In view of the above, the dependency or financial contribution to the family cannot be estimated more than Rs. 700. However, the Tribunal has committed an error that the appellant No. 3 was not entitled to any compensation. Section 110-A of the Act of 1939, corresponding to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lays down that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(aa) by the owner of the property; or

(b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be;

The Supreme Court considered the question in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) and after referring to the provisions of Sections 110-A and 110-B of the Act of 1939 ruled that the application for compensation cannot be restricted to the relatives of the deceased, named in provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. This court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Ram Mohan Shrivastava and Others, , followed the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra). Therefore, we are of the view that the brother also falls within the definition of legal representatives, so the appellant No. 3 would also be entitled to get the compensation as legal representative of the deceased.

In the circumstances, as the appellant No. 3 is a disabled person due to poor vision, hence looking to the age of the parents and the age of appellant No. 3, the appropriate multiplier of 16 is applied to the multiplicand of Rs. 8,400, the amount would work out to Rs. 1,34,400. In this Rs. 2,500 is added as loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, that would make total of Rs. 1,38,900 which the appellants would be entitled to with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle shall pay the amount jointly and severally.

As respondent No. 3 has suffered the award and its liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 is not disputed we direct the respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount as directed, less the amount already deposited within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order. On deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

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