Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Managing Director, M.P. State Road ... vs Bhagwanti Bai And Ors. on 15 July, 1998

Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ143

JUDGMENT
 

S.K. Dubey, J.
 

1. The appellant Corporation has filed this appeal aggrieved of the award dated 17.4.1997 passed in M.C.C. No. 74 of 1994 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore.

2. It is not in dispute that on ill-fated day of 20.5.1994 deceased Vishwanath alias Shivnath aged 40 years, the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 died in motor accident when he was sleeping in front of the truck which was standing on the left side of the road. This truck was dashed by bus No. MP-09-D-4415, driven by respondent No. 8 during the course of employment of the appellant. As a result of this collision the truck was pushed forward crushing the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal assessed the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 from which '/3rd was deducted and the dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,333, yearly Rs. 15,996. In this multiplier of 15 was applied and the amount was worked out to Rs. 2,39,940. In this Rs. 10,000 were added for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 for each of the children for loss of love and affection and Rs. 1,000 for funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of Rs. 2,62,000 was awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 15.12.1994 till deposit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was negligent who was sleeping on the roadside, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim. It was next submitted that the selection of the multiplier of 15 is not correct. The award for loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 2,000 to each of the children, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 7 is also illegal.

4. Mr. Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the award and submitted that no interference is called for.

5. After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal as to rash and negligent driving of the bus does not call for any interference. Admittedly, the truck was standing on extreme left side of the road. The deceased was sleeping just in front of the truck. The truck was dashed by the passenger bus, as a result of which the standing truck was pushed ahead which crushed the deceased. In the circumstances the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the bus driver.

6. As to compensation, so far as the assessment of the earning of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month goes, it is proper, but, deduction of 1/3rd is illegal as the deceased was maintaining seven dependants. Therefore, Rs. 500 is to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 1,500 per month, yearly Rs. 18,000. In this multiplier of 12 is applied, the amount would work out to Rs. 2,16,000. In this Rs. 10,000 is added for loss of consortium to respondent No. 1, the widow of the deceased and Rs. 10,000 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, that would make the total of Rs. 2,38,000. Amount for loss of love and affection to respondent Nos. 2 to 7 is not awardable. Thus, the respondents would be entitled to Rs. 2,38,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till deposit.

7. The appellant State Corporation is directed to deposit the said amount with its accrued interest, less the amount already deposited by it within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the respondents/claimants keeping in mind the well settled guidelines.

8. Accordingly, the appeal shall stand disposed of. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified as indicated herein-above. In the circumstances, we direct the appellant to pay the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if pre-certified.