High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court

Urmila @ Uma And Ors. vs Rajendra And Ors. on 14 September, 2006

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Urmila @ Uma And Ors. vs Rajendra And Ors. on 14 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: I (2007) ACC 795, 2008 ACJ 286
Author: D Misra
Bench: D Misra, A Sapre


JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The claimant-appellants have called in question the legal propriety of the award dated 12.12.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur (in short ‘the Tribunal’), in Claim Case No. 83/2003 whereby the Tribunal being moved by an application preferred under Section 166 of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased Mahesh Prasad Saxena, a constable, aged about 44 years, who was working in the M.P. Police and getting salary of Rs. 6,229, granted compensation of Rs. 6,37,100, which included Rs. 10,000 towards love and affection and another Rs. 10,000 towards expectation for life.

2. The factum of accident, the validity of insurance policy, non-breach or conditions of licence, the income of the deceased, the aged of the deceased and other ancillary and subsistence facts, which are essential to be addressed for the purpose of adjudication of claim are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. The cavil, in essence, relates to quantum.

3. Submission of Mr. Patwa is that the Tribunal has urged in two aspects, namely, it has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and second, the multiplier of 12 has been applied though the multiplier of 15 could have been attracted.

4. Mr. Upadhyay learned Counsel appearing for the insurer-contractor, submitted that the deceased was constable and in a case of this nature future prospects are not to be taken into consideration. It is also submitted by him assuming the same is payable it would get covered by the amount that has been granted towards love and affection and the head of expectation of life.

5. Regard be it to the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to apply multiplier of 14 to the present case. The Tribunal had determined that the yearly contribution was Rs. 49,800 if multiplier of 14 is attracted compensation would come to Rs. 7,47,000. To the aforesaid we shall add Rs. 15,000. Thus the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 7,62,000. The differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal till the date of deposition before it.

6. The appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.