IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR (Single Bench)

M.A.No.1923 of 2010 [Chatur Singh @ Dhampoli Rawat & Ors. Vs. Ballan Yadav & Ors.]

&

MA. No .453 of 2011 [Smt. Priti Kakoriya & Anr. Vs. Chatur Singh @ Dhampoli & Ors.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM Hon. Smt. Justice Sunita Yadav ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance M.A.No.1923/2010 Shri Mahesh Haswani, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Shri Shriniwas Gajendragadkar, learned counsel and Shri K.S.

Rochlani, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance company.

M.A.No.453/2011 Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Mahesh Haswani, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri S.N. Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/Insurance company.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether approved for Reporting : No Reserved on : 25.04.2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

(Passed on 5^th May, 2022)

These Miscellaneous Appeals No.1923/2010 & 453/2011 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed challenging the award dated 18/10/2010 passed by IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case Nos.18/2009.

2. The facts in brief to decide these appeals are that the appellants No.1 to 3 who are the father, mother and brother of the deceased Manoj Rawat preferred the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for realizing an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,63,000/- along with interest for the death of deceased Manoj Rawat. The deceased died in a motor vehicle accident dated 22/12/2008 caused by the rash and negligence driving of the vehicle no.MP32/P/0125 by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the said vehicle and the same was insured with the respondent No.3 on the date of accident. The deceased was aged 22 years and was doing the work of bus conductor and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as salary. He was also getting Rs.30/- per day as daily allowance, thus his total monthly income was Rs.4,900/-.

3. The respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the claims tribunal but did not file any reply to the claim petition the despite having granted many opportunities for the same and ultimately their right to file reply was struck-off by the claims tribunal on

20/08/2009.

4. The respondent No.3 insurance company filed its written statement and denied all the material averments of the claimants/appellants. The tribunal framed certain issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The appellants examined appellant No.1-Chatur Singh, father of the deceased and Rajju Rawat, an eye witness of the accident and produced documentary evidence before the claims tribunal. The respondent No.3 examined two witnesses namely Satya Prakash Goyal and Mathu John an employee of the insurance company. The claim tribunal passed an award of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favor of the appellants and against the respondents No.1 and 2 and exonerated respondent No.3, the insurance company.

M.A.No.1923/2010

5. In this appeal, the appellants have taken the ground that the tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was not employed as a conductor on the offending bus despite there being over- whelming evidence available on record. The claim tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2500/- per month without taking into consideration the evidence in this regard. It is further contented that 1/2 deduction made by the tribunal towards the self expenditure is against the settled principles of law. The multiplier adopted by the claim tribunal is also not appropriate and the claim tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while awarding the compensation.

5. T