Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaman vs Ved Prakash And Ors. on 8 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2007ACJ174
Author: N.K. Mody
Bench: N.K. Mody
JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J.
1. Heard on LA. No. 209 of 2005 which is an application filed by Mr. L.N. Soni who has prayed to withdraw the power. Since Mr. Khedawat has appeared, therefore, application is allowed. Mr. Soni is permitted to withdraw the power.
Heard the matter finally.
2. Being aggrieved by the inadequate amount of award passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Sendhwa, in Claim Case No. 68 of 1997 vide award dated 16.9.1999 whereby a sum of Rs. 76,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that learned court below has awarded Rs. 76,000 as compensation holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 12,000 per year, dependency was assessed at the rate of Rs. 300 per month and multiplier of 15 was applied. Thus, amount for loss of income was awarded as Rs. 54,000 and Rs. 22,000 in other heads such as physical pain and suffering and funeral expenses.
4. Learned Counsel submits that even assuming that the deceased was not doing anything then too, the notional income was required to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per year and the dependency was to be assessed as two-third, that is, Rs. 10,000. It is also submitted that multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied instead of 15.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the appellant is not legal representative of the deceased as he is the brother who himself was an earning member. Learned Counsel submits that in view of this, dependency of Rs. 300 has rightly been calculated by the court below.
6. Learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
(12) We feel that the view taken by Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by sections 110A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of Torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which, as we have already held, has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.
7. In view of this, the claim petition filed by the appellant is maintainable. After duly examining the evidence on record, it appears that the amount of Rs. 76,000 awarded as compensation is on the lower side. The notional income of the deceased was required to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per year. Since the appellant is the brother, therefore, instead of assessing dependency as two-third it is assessed as one-half and multiplier of 15 is applied looking to the age of the brother.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the court below is modified to the extent, the amount of Rs. 54,000 towards loss of income is enhanced to Rs. 1,35,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.