Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sajanbai And Anr. vs Illias Mohammad And Ors. on 15 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ551
JUDGMENT
R.D. Shukla and B.A. Khan, JJ.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.6.1993 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow, District Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 96 of 1987 whereby the claimants-appellants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 66,300 for the death of Mangilal, predecessor in interest of claimants and for damage to the motor cycle owned by the deceased.
2. Brief history of the case is that Mangilal was going from Kadampur to Mhow on his motor cycle bearing No. MPN 9017 in the morning of 9.11.1985. When he was about to cross the village, motor truck No. MBO 1632 came at high speed and dashed with the motor cycle by coming to the wrong side. Mangilal sustained injuries. Motor cycle was damaged. Mangilal was taken to hospital but he died on the way.
3. The claimants-appellants thereafter filed claim petition with the assertions that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was further stated that Mangilal was aged 50 years at the time of said accident. He was having a tractor and trolley for conducting agricultural operations and owned about 20 acres of land. A person had to be employed for conducting agricultural operations on a salary of Rs. 600 per month and one more person at a salary of Rs. 300 has been engaged for looking after the fields and crops grown in the field. They further claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000 for damage to the motor cycle and for loss of consortium and love and affection. In all total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rs. one lakh fifty thousand) was claimed.
4. The claim was resisted by the respondents. The main objection was as to the quantum.
5. Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and allowed compensation on following heads:
General damages Rs. 64,800
Loss to the motor cycle Rs. 1,500
-------------
Total Rs. 667300
-------------
6. This appeal has been filed for enhancement. Nobody appeared for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., driver and owner of the vehicle. Respondent No. 3, insurance company has opposed the enhancement.
7. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the income and dependency have been assessed at lower side. No amount has been awarded for loss of consortium and love and affection and that the compensation for damage to the motor cycle is also unjust. As against this, learned Counsel for insurance company has submitted that the land and tractor is with the claimants. They are simply required to engage a labourer and driver for the tractor and, therefore, the compensation has rightly been assessed by learned Tribunal.
8. We have been taken through the evidence on record. There is no dispute as to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Admittedly, Mangilal was aged about 50 years and was owner of 20 acres of land with a tractor and trolley as well. After the death of Mangilal the claimants will have to employ a driver for conducting the agricultural operations and for driving the tractor. The driver of the tractor in the year 1986 must be charging at least Rs. 1,200 per month, i.e., Rs. 40 per day. For conducting agricultural operations the tractor will have to be run for about 4 months. For rest of the period the claimants would be required to employ a skilled labourer for looking after the field and the crops grown and standing thereon. Thus, the claimants will have to spend Rs. 1,200 for 4 months and Rs. 600 for 8 months which comes to Rs. 9,600 per year. While estimating the loss we have not considered the earning of Mangilal independently by running the tractor for carrying the loads of agricultural produce. Thus, if that is taken into consideration, the income of Mangilal will have to be assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month which comes to Rs. 14,400 per year which may be rounded to Rs. 15,000. Then if 1/3rd of it is deducted for personal expenditure of Mangilal, the dependency and the loss on either way comes to Rs. 10,000 per year. Mangilal was aged 50 years at the time of said accident and, therefore, a multiplier of 10 will have to be applied taking into consideration the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).
9. Thus, general damages come to Rs. 1,00,000. Claimants are further entitled to loss of consortium and love and affection and the traditional amount of Rs. 5,000 each. That comes to Rs. 10,000. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,500 only for damage to the motor cycle as against Rs. 5,800 as per receipt produced by the claimants. Even if a reasonable assessment of damage is made that will come to Rs. 4,800. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,800 on account of damage to the vehicle. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,14,800. The claimants- would be further entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on this amount from the date of application till realisation.
10. As a result the appeal partly succeeds. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,14,800 from Rs. 66,300 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. Any amount paid to the claimants would be given adjustment. The amount of interest shall be calculated accordingly. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.