BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Multai (Betul), dated 30. 10. 1999 in Claim Case no. 58 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE accident took place on 7. 3. 1997 at 8. 30 a. m. , when the deceased Kalabai along with others including Banna, Anil, revji and Mukesh were travelling in jeep no. MP 05-A 2824 from Pachmarhi to betul, near Dokra Khedi, another jeep No. MP 05-A 8304 driven rashly and negligently, hit the jeep in which the deceased and others were travelling. In this accident, the deceased suffered head injury. She was taken to the hospital at Pipariya where she was declared dead. Report was lodged with the police and an offence under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered. Claim of Rs. 3,04,000 was made.

( 3 ) ACCIDENT has been admitted by the insurance company but other facts have been denied, and it is also claimed that the driver was not in possession of valid and legal driving licence at the time of the accident and it was a case of contributory negligence.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident took place as alleged and claimants were legal heirs of the deceased. Jeep No. MP 05-A 2824 was not responsible for the accident. It was also found that the accident was not the result of contributory negligence on the part of driver of this vehicle. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 54,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum has been awarded. It has been made payable by insurance company with which the jeep No. MP 05-A 8304 was insured. The claimants are not satisfied with the award. Therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case.

( 6 ) FROM the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was travelling in the jeep No. MP 05-A 2824. It was hit by jeep No. MP 05-A 8304 which was driven rashly and negligently. Deceased died due to this accident. It is not a case of contributory negligence.

( 7 ) NEXT is the question of compensation. Facts disclose that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of the accident. She was a housewife, leaving behind Banna (husband), Anil (aged 22 years), Sunil (aged 18 years) and Deepa (aged 14 years ). Her annual income has been taken at rs. 15,000 as fixed by Schedule for non-earning members. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs. 10,000 per annum. At the time of the accident, she left behind three children and the husband.

( 8 ) MR. Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the husband has remarried after 2'/2 years of the accident and that the two sons are 22 years and 18 years old. Therefore, multiplier should be 10, while Mr. S. L. Kochar submits that multiplier should be 15.

( 9 ) TAKING into consideration all the facts of the case, particularly the fact that the husband has remarried, the appropriate multiplier should be 13. Therefore, with this background, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of (Rs. 10,000 x 13) Rs. 1,30,000. Since the husband remarried after 2'/2 years, we award less of consortium, only to the extent of Rs. 5,000 in addition to Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, making the total compensation of Rs. 1,37,000. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent as aforesaid. The insurance company shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,37,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. The amount of compensation shall be distributed as follows: (1) Deepa

50 per cent

(2) Other claimants

50 per cent in equal shares

Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document