Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anjali Kevlarmani And Others vs Shri Keshavram And Others on 4 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: I(2002)ACC241, 2002ACJ241, 2001(1)MPHT62, 2000 A I H C 4574, (2000) 3 MPLJ 177, (2000) 3 TAC 341, (2002) 1 ACJ 241, (2000) 4 CIVLJ 684
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. Both these appeals (Misc. Appeal No. 551/91 - Smt. Anjali Kevlarmani and 2 others Vs. Shri Keshavram and others, and Misc. Appeal No. 558/91 -Sewakram Sewani and another Vs. Keshao and others) are being disposed of by this common judgment, since they arise out of the same accident and common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur dated July 25,1991.
2. The accident took place on 27-2-1988 at about 7.30 p.m. near village Abhanpur, on Raipur-Dhamtari road. At the time of accident, when both the deceased, namely Bharat Kumar and Anand Kumar, were going from Raipur Kanker on Hero Honda Motor Cycle No. C.I.T. 7257, truck No. M.B.T. 8558, which was coming from opposite direction, dashed Hero Honda Motor Cycle, as a result of which both, Bharat Kumar and Anand Kumar, died on the spot. Two claim petitions have been filed by the legal heirs of both the deceased for compensation of Rs. 10,96,000/- and Rs. 6,06,000/- respectively. It is pointed out that the motor cycle was being driven by Bharat Kumar while Anand Kumar was pillion rider. Nindar Singh Hora was owner of the truck and Keshavram was driver of the said truck. The Hero Honda Motor Cycle No. C.I.T. 7257 was hit by truck No. M.B.T. 8588. Both the riders of the Motor Cycle died on the spot. The truck was insured with the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. The matter was reported to the Police and a case under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and challan was filed.
3. Bharat Kumar was 25 years old at the time of accident and was working in medical store earning Rs. 1200/- per month. This apart, he was repairing V.C.R. and T.V., from which he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent on him.
4. Anand Kumar was unmarried at the time of accident. He was Advocate practising at Ranker for last two years. He had good practice and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, out of which he was given Rs. 1200/- per month to the family, who were dependents on him. Amount of Rs. 10.000/-was spent on religious ceremonies on his death.
5. The defence taken is that the truck was moving at a reasonable speed while the motor cycle came at excessive speed and struck against the truck resulting in death of two young men. The owner and driver of the truck have been proceeded ex parte.
6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased persons. The accident took place as alleged by the claimants due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver hitting the motor cycle and resulting the death of Bharat Kumar and Anand Kumar. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1,02,000/- has been awarded to Anjali, widow of deceased Bharat Kumar and Rs. 8,200/- to Tikul Baj, mother of deceased Bharat Kumar. In case of deceased Anand Kumar, the award amount is for Rs. 49,000/-. The award has been made payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation.
7. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Record perused. Looking to the evidence available on record, certain things may be noticed and just compensation assessed thereafter.
8. Bharat Kumar was 24 years old at the time of accident. He was working in Medical Store of his brother and also carrying on repair works of V.C.R. and T.V. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1200/- per month from both the sources, taking total amount to Rs. 2400/- per month. We are of the opinion that deceased Bharat Kumar must be earning Rs. 1500/-per month, out of which he may be giving Rs. 1000/- to the family. Looking to the age of the deceased (24 years), his widow wife - Anjali (20 years) and mother - Tikul Bai (60 years), appropriate multiplier in this case should be 18. With this background, for the death of Bharat Kumar, the total compensation amount payable to his legal heirs should be Rs. 1000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.2,16,000/-. To this would be added to Rs. 2000/- for. funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/-exclusive to his widow - Anjali by way of consortium, taking total compensation to Rs. 2,28,000/-. It shall carry interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. In case, it is not paid within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, it shall carry interest at the rate of 10 % per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. It shall be paid in the ratio of 80 % to widow - Anjali Kevlarmani and 20 % to mother - Tikul Bai.
9. Anand Kumar was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was Advocate and was practising for the last two years. He claimed that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month, leaving Rs. 1000/- for his family. The Tribunal has assessed the dependency of Rs. 600/- per month. It is believed that more practice more income, if he was young advocate and there was every likelihood of his earning more in future particularly at Sub Division - Kanker, as it has become district now. We think, the dependency of Rs. 600/- is on lower side. A reasonable amount of dependency, in the facts and circumstances of the case, should be Rs. 1000/- per month. Looking to the age of deceased Anand Kumar (25 years), father - Sewakram Sewani (45 years) and mother - Smt. Kaushalayabai (42 years), the reasonable multiplier in this case should be 16. Consequently, the claimants, in the case of death of Anand Kumar, shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1000 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 1,92,000/- plus Rs. 2000/-towards funeral expenses, taking total compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/-- payable with interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of application till the date of realisation. In case, the amount is not paid within two months from the date of this judgment, it shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.
10. Both the appeals (Misc. Appeal No. 551/91 and Misc. Appeal No. 558/91) are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The parties shall bear their own costs.
11. Misc. Appeal allowed.