Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayraj And Anr. vs Kaluram And Anr. on 17 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ636
JUDGMENT
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.
1. This appeal is filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle challenging the findings of Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accident by the tractor-trolley owned by Hariram, appellant No. 2, has not been proved. He submitted that there is no evidence regarding the factum of accident. He further submitted that the insurance company has improperly been exonerated. He has also assailed the quantum of compensation.
2. The counsel for the claimants, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the award is on the lower side. Factum of the accident has been proved. He has filed cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation.
3. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
4. Deceased Sitaram s/o Kaluram was aged about 16 years. On 18.5.1995 he was travelling in a trolley of the tractor owned by Hariram, appellant No. 2. The tractor was driven by Jairam, appellant No. 1. Vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in fall of Sitaram from the tractor-trolley. He came under the wheels and died on the spot. Deceased was earning Rs. 60 per day, i.e., Rs. 1,800 per month. Kaheram, AW 1 has categorically deposed in para 5 of his deposition that he has seen the tractor-trolley which had caused the accident. Trolley contained fifty 'baratis'. He has sent his son Sitaram (deceased) to guide the marriage party to the house of one Hukum Chand Sahu. Sitaram boarded the trolley of the said tractor and moved for the house of Hukum Chand Sahu. He fell from the tractor-trolley and died.
5. Thus, Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the vehicle was not used for agriculture purpose but the vehicle was used for taking marriage party, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Sali-gram, AW 2, has also deposed in para 3 of his deposition that the tractor-trolley which caused the accident has brought a marriage party in the village.
6. As regards income of the deceased is concerned, Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that income of the deceased was Rs. 50 per day which is based on the evidence on record and we are of the opinion that the finding is just and proper. Kalu-ram, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was pulling a hand-cart and was earning Rs. 50-60 per day. On this evidence, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 50 per day, i.e., Rs. 1,500 per month. This finding of the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.
7. As regards quantum of compensation is concerned, since monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 1,500, his yearly income comes to Rs. 18,000. Deceased was aged about 16 years. Therefore, there is every likelihood that he may earn more in future. Therefore, dependency of the parents can be determined on higher side. Considering the escalation in prices, we determine the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month, i.e., Rs. 24,000 per annum and dependency is determined at Rs. 8,000 per year. Since claimants are the parents of the deceased, therefore, multiplier will be applicable on the age of mother of the deceased. Mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident, therefore, multiplier of 15 will be applicable. Applying the multiplier of 15 the sum comes to Rs. 1,20,000. Over and above this amount, claimants will also be entitled for further sum of Rs. 20,000 for damages under various heads such as funeral expenses, loss to estate, etc. Award is therefore, enhanced to Rs. 1,40,000 (Rs. one lakh forty thousand).
8. So far as interest is concerned, there was some delay on the part of the claimants. Claimants have impleaded Shantibai on 6.10.1999 and the owner Hariram on 16.12.1997. Therefore, the claimants will be entitled for interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from 1.1.1998 till final payment.
9. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed and the cross-objection succeeds in part and is allowed.