Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court.


Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Brihaspathi Alias Lalli And … vs Narbadeshwar Thakur And Others on 17 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (1) MPHT 277
Author: B Singh
Bench: B Singh, A Mishra


ORDER

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 28/96, dated February 19,1998.

2. In the accident that took place on 22-44996, Shantibai died when the offending vehicle, MP-23-D-9419, owned by Sanjaykumar Mishra and driven rashly and negligently by Narbadeshwar Thakur, dashed inside the house of Shantibai and killed her, apart from destroying her house. At the lime of accident, deceased was 46 years old earning Rs. 100.00 as labourer and by selling vegetables. Compensation has been claimed for her death and loss to the house. Driver has been proceeded ex-parte. Claimants are husband and 7 children of the deceased who were dependent on her. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Owner of the vehicle stated that deceased was 65 years old, she was dependent on her husband and had no income of her own. The truck was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. and the driver had valid driving licence with all other relevant papers. The Insurance Company has stated that it was responsible to pay Rs. 6,000.00 for loss of property, the vehicle committed breach of the policy, therefore, it was not responsible for payment of compensation.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on 22- 4-1996 when the truck bearing registration No. MP-26-D-9419, driven by Narbadeshwar Thakur rashly and negligently, killed the deceased for which the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. Compensation of Rs. 1,21,000.00 has been awarded with 18% interest from the date of application till realisation. Counsel’s fee Rs. 500.00 has also been awarded.

4. We have examined the whole matter with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. First thing is about the age of the deceased at the time of accident. Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 55 years, presumably on the basis of medical certificate. This does not appear to be correct, since her age at the time of accident, as per statement of Vijaykumar (C.W. 1), was 45 years. In claim petition, her age has been described as 46 years. It is not understandable who gave her age as 55 years to the Doctor at the time of post mortem examination when her husband Sukhram has been shown to be aged 52 years at the time of examination in Court on 3-2-1998. The accident took place on 22- 4-1996 when his age should be 50 years. From this angle, the age of the deceased should normally be 5 to 6 years less than the age of her husband. Consequently, it would be proper to fix her age at 46 years at the time of accident. Proper multiplier in this case is 13. Evidence points out that she was earning Rs. 100.00 per day, but substance of evidence is that she was earning Rs. 40.00 to Rs. 45.00 per day. Her monthly income can be taken al Rs. 1200.00 and after making deduction of 1/3 from this amount, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 800.00 and yearly Rs. 9,600.00.Thus counted, the compensation awardable in this case comes to (9,600 x 12 x 13) =
Rs. 1,24,800.00. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,000.00 towards cremation expenses and Rs. 5,000.00 towards consortium, taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 1,31,800.00. Claimants are also entitled to Rs. 25,000.00 for destruction of the house in the accident. Contention of Shri S.K. Rao that the Insurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 6,000.00 cannot he accepted since the award has not been challenged by way of appeal.

5. Therefore, modifying the award made by the Tribunal, it is directed that claimants arc entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,31,000.00 for the death of deceased Shantibai and Rs. 25,000.00 for destruction to the house. The amount-of-compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation.

Costs on parties.

6. Misc. Appeal allowed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.162 seconds.