Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 112
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
DEEPAK VERMA, ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI
DILKHUSH - Appellant
Versus
BHERULAL - Respondents
M. A. 1520 Of 2000
Decided On : 01/21/2005
S.V.DANDVATE, Sudhanshu Vyas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accidents, including the determination of liability of the parties and the insurance company based on the latest Supreme Court judgment.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Compensation Claim - The court awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants for the death of Siyaram due to a motor accident, holding the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally liable, while dismissing the liability of the insurance company based on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
Siyaram died in a motor accident while working as a laborer on a tractor-trolley. The claimants, including his widow, minor daughters, son, and parents, filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,10,000, holding the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally liable, while dismissing the liability of the insurance company. The court also dismissed the cross-objections of the insurance company as barred by limitation.
Issues: Assessment of compensation, liability of the parties, and the applicability of the latest Supreme Court judgment were the key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court assessed the deceased's income and dependency, applied a proper multiplier, and considered various heads of loss to determine the enhanced compensation. The court also relied on the latest Supreme Court judgment to determine the liability of the parties and the insurance company.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, awarding the claimants a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 with interest, holding the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally liable, and dismissing the liability of the insurance company. The court also dismissed the cross-objections of the insurance company as barred by limitation.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of claimants, against the award dated 12/9/2000, passed by Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in m. V. Case No. 21 of 2000, whereby and wherein for death of one Siyaram, present appellants have been awarded a sum of rs. 2,00,000 together with interest against respondents jointly and severally.
( 2 ) THIS appeal is for enhancement. The respondent No. 3 has also filed a cross-objection on 2/2/2005, under Order 41, rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code. Since said cross-objections are barred by more than 3 years, it has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.
( 4 ) DECEASED Siyaram was travelling in a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 14-G 4282 and MP 14-G 4283, respectively, on 16. 12. 1999. Said trolley was being used for transportation of soyabean from village Nataram to Mandsaur. According to claimants, Siyaram was working on the said trolley as a labourer for loading. Thus, he was entitled to travel thereon. Due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trolley attached thereto, by respondent No. 2, Siyaram was thrown off the trolley and came under it. He sustained bodily injuries in the said accident. He was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to the same.
( 5 ) ON account of his death in the said accident, appellants being widow, minor daughters, son and parents have filed a claim petition. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. It was averred by the appellants that deceased siyaram was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 100 per day. It was further averred that apart from above, he was also working as an electrician and making additional income thereby. However, on appreciation of evidence available on record, claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs. 50 per day. Monthly income was assessed at Rs. 1,500 and after making the usual deduction that the deceased must have been spending on himself, dependency of appellants have been worked out at Rs. 1,000 per month. Looking to the age of deceased and that of the appellants, multiplier of 14 has been adopted.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that income has been assessed on lower side and proper multiplier has also not been adopted.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for respondent-insurance company submitted that in the light of cross-objection filed by it, no liability could have been fastened on the insurance company or in any case, the amount already awarded is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. In alternative, it was submitted that since this respondent has already satisfied the award fully, if any enhancement is to be made, the same should be made against owner and driver, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, only. This has been submitted on the strength of latest judgment of Supreme Court in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), which now holds the field.
( 8 ) DECEASED was working as a labourer and even in the year 1999, taking a most modest computation, he must have been earning at least Rs. 75 per day. Since he would not have worked for the whole month continuously and would have taken few days off also, it can safely be inferred that he must have been earning at least rs. 2,000 per month, which comes to rs. 24,000 per annum. After deducting the usual amount that the deceased must have been spending on himself, dependency of appellants would work out at Rs. 16,000 per annum. Looking to the age of deceased and that of appellants, proper multiplier to the facts of the case would be 17. Thus, rs. 16,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,72,000. To this, we add further amount of Rs. 38,000 towards various other heads such as loss of company, loss to estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, etc. , making the compensation at rs. 3,10,000.
