BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jabalpur in M. V. C. No. 7 of 2000, dated 7. 11. 2001, has been challenged by the claimants who are parents of deceased Ajay Senger. 2. Material facts of the case are that in the morning of 4. 10. 1999 at about 10 a. m. , ajay Senger (deceased) met with an accident when dumper No. MP 10-A 5599 driven by Ashok Garhewal, owned by s. E. W. Construction Co. Ltd. and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , hit the motor cycle on which deceased was coming from the opposite side. As a result of this accident, deceased died on the spot. He was 27 years old, a brilliant student who, after completing degree in Master of Business Administration course, was selected by Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. , Mandleshwar (Khargone)against the post of Management Trainee on contract basis for a period of 5 years. On the date of accident, he was being paid stipend of Rs. 6,000 per month. Looking to his bright career, he could acquire the status of Deputy General Manager in future and earn salary of Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month. Accordingly, compensation of rs. 8,60,40,000 is claimed along with interest. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by dumper driver otherwise it could not have happened.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have contested the claim alleging that the deceased was responsible for the accident. He lost balance on hearing the horn of the dumper. Moreover, the driver stood exonerated of criminal liability, by the court when he was prosecuted for offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) UNITED India Insurance Co. Ltd. alleges that the insurance company with which the motor cycle was insured, should also have been made party to the case.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of parties, Claims tribunal framed as many as six issues. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, finding drawn are that the accident took place as alleged as a result of which the deceased died. It is said that insurance company with which motor cycle was insured, was not a necessary party. Both the driver of the dumper and motor cycle possessed valid driving licence. Ultimately, the compensation of Rs. 4,44,000 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

( 5 ) MR. A. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for appellants, vehemently urges that the Claims Tribunal did not assess the compensation justly and properly. It did not take into consideration the fact that deceased was a brilliant student appointed by the company where he was to earn promotion after promotion and reach the stage of General Manager who generally gets monthly salary of Rs. 50,000. He was likely to complete training after four months and get into the post of Engineer. Accordingly, Tribunal has chosen low multiplier of 12 instead of 18 applicable in this case.

( 6 ) MR. S. K. Rao representing insurance company submits that at the time of incident deceased was receiving stipend of rs. 6,000, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly arrived at the dependency and looking to the nature of evidence multiplier of 12 has rightly been applied. Moreover, the deceased was receiving handsome salary and the award of compensation to the mother is quite reasonable. It is sheer guess to say that deceased could have reached the post of General Manager in the company at later stage since his future was bright.

( 7 ) MR. V. R. Rao, learned counsel representing the construction company submits that claimant has not produced satisfactory evidence as to the salary of various posts which he could think of achieving at later stages. Therefore, only satisfactory figure on which dependency can be worked out is the stipend of Rs. 6,000, which the deceased was receiving at the time of accident. Mr. Rao further submits that 2/3rd of the dependency would have gone to the deceased and 1/3rd left to the claimant a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document