Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushila And Anr. vs Rampal Singh And Ors. on 15 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2007ACJ1958
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Chief Justice, Dipak Misra
JUDGMENT R.V. Raveendran, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 8.10.1997 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 67 of 1996.
2. The claim petition was filed by this appellant who is the widow of one Ravindra Singh, claiming a compensation of Rs. 14,00,000 for the death of her husband in a motor accident involving truck bearing registration No. CIG 2252 on 6.5.1992. She stated that the deceased was aged 22 years and had a monthly income of Rs. 3,000 as a mechanic.
3. She examined herself and also examined her father-in-law and the employer in regard to income. An eyewitness was also examined. The driver of the truck did not give any evidence. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held as follows:
(a) Accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of truck No. CIG 2252.
(b) The deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation.
(c) The income of the deceased was Rs. 625 per month, that is, Rs. 25 per day for 25 days in a month and the compensation payable is Rs. 95,068.
(d) The owner and driver, shall pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation.
4. Feeling aggrieved the claimant and the posthumous daughter of the deceased Ravindra Singh have filed this appeal. On the contentions urged by the appellants, the following two points arise for determination:
(a) Whether the insurer ought to have been made liable along with owner and driver of the vehicle?
(b) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low?
Re. point (a):
5. The evidence shows that the truck had been parked touching an electric pole. The deceased who was a passer-by touched the doorknob of the truck and was electrocuted. There is no evidence to show that deceased was a passenger in the vehicle. On the other hand, it is clear that the accident occurred on account of the driver of the truck parking the truck in such negligent manner in a public place touching an electric pole with the result that anyone who touched the metallic part of the truck was electrocuted. The deceased was, therefore, a third party who died on account of negligence of the driver and, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The first point is answered accordingly.
Re. point (b):
6. The evidences of the wife, father and the employer clearly show that deceased was a mechanic. Hence, even if the Claims Tribunal did not believe that the income was Rs. 3,000 per month in the absence of documentary evidence, it ought to have held that the income of the deceased was at least Rs. 1,250 per month or Rs. 15,000 per annum. Though, the accident occurred prior to insertion of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that Rs. 15,000 per annum would be appropriate.
7. On deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, we arrived at the contribution to the family as Rs. 10,000 per annum. As the deceased was aged 22 years, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Therefore, the total loss of dependency is determined at Rs. 1,70,000. In addition, we award Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,82,000.
8. We accordingly allow this appeal in part as follows:
(a) The compensation is increased from Rs. 95,068 to Rs. 1,82,000.
(b) While the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, the enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
(c) The driver, owner and insurer are made liable for the accident jointly and severally and the entire amount awarded shall be paid by the insurer.
(d) We apportion the compensation as 70 per cent for the widow and 30 per cent for the minor daughter. The entire amount falling to the share of the minor (appellant No. 2) and 60 per cent of the share of widow (appellant No. 1) shall be kept in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for five years each with a further renewal of five years with liberty to the appellant No. 1 to draw interest.
(e) Parties to bear their respective costs.