1980 Supreme(MP) 386

G. G. Sohani and R. K. Vijayawargiya, JJ.
Chamelibai v. Chhotekhan.
M. A. No. 50 of 1976 (I); Decided on 4-11-1930.

Headnote:(1) Moror Vehicles Act, 1939 -- Ss. 110-B and 110-D -- quantum of award under section 110-B -- when requires interference by appellate Court -- amount awarded too low -- interference permissible.

        (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-B -- adequate compensation under -- what is -- deceased 28 years of age -- dependency Rs. 200 per month -- compensation of Rs. 30,000 held adequate after deductions of savings -- life insurance.

        The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver Chhotekhan in driving the mini bus and the respondents were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from 2-7-74 till payment limiting the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs 5,000.

        Held : The question, that arises for consideration, is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too low requiring interference in appeal. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal did not accept the income of the deceased as deposed by Chamelibai and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence a bout the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs. 10,000 as general damages. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. Chamelibai stated that her husband was dealing in radios and his income was Rs. 2,000 per month. She further stated that the deceased was paying Rs. 700 as income-tax per year. As the assessment orders and account books were not produced, the Tribunal did not accept the evidence of Chamelibai. The appellants have filed an application in this Court under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and produced assessment orders of the deceased for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. From the assessment orders, it appears that the business income of the deceased for the assessment years 1968-68 was Rs. 8,750 and for the assessment year 1969-70, it was Rs. 4,200. Even if the income returned for the assessment year 1969-70 is taken into account, the income of the deceased from business was Rs. 350 per month. The dependency of the claimants, therefore, can be determined at Rs. 200 per month. The deceased, as stated above, was 28 years of age at the time of the accident and, therefore, the multiplier is 32 in the case of the widow and 16 in the case of the minor son. The average multiplier, therefore, can be taken as 24. Computing the amount of compensation on this basis, the amount would come to round about R8. 57,000. After deducting 15% from the said amount on account of the lump sum payment and uncertainties of life, the amount of compensation would be worked out to Rs. 48,000. The applicant admitted that the deceased was insured of Rs. 10,000. It has further emerged from the evidence that the deceased was also in receipt of income from interest which means that he had some savings, which had devolved upon the appellants. Making deduction of the said amounts we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 30,000 would be an adequate recompense to the claimants for the death of the deceased. We, therefore, direct that the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the non-applicants with interest at 6% per annum from 2-7-74 till payment, as directed by the Tribunal. Out of this amount the Insurance Co. is liable to pay Rs. 5,000 with interest and balance of the amount shall be paid by the owners and the driver of the mini-bus.Appeal allowed.