PADMAWATI Vs. RAGHU PRASAD AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act, 1988"), the appellants/claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by award dated 3 -9 -2003 by 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 17/2002, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in favour of the appellants/claimants. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 14,65,000/ - for the death of Krishna Lal Patel in a motor accident, which took place on 3 -7 -1998. Appellant No. 1 Padmawati is mother and appellant No. 2 Rameshwar is father of deceased Krishna Lal Patel. The deceased was employed in Government Service as a Constable in Special Armed Force. On 3 -7 -1998, deceased Krishna Lal Patel was going on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven in balanced speed on left side of the road. When the deceased reached near Chhatamuda, a truck bearing registration No. MOR 8744, being driven by respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle heavily. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident and succumbed to the same on the date of admission itself in Kirodimal Government District Hospital, Raigarh. First Information Report (Ex. A1) was lodged in Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh. Respondent No. 1 is owner and respondent No. 3 is insurer of the truck.

(2.) DROPADI Patel, widow of the deceased also filed a claim petition, being Claim Case No. 23/2002 before the Claims Tribunal. Her claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Dropadi Patel Had remarried and also got compassionate appointment on death of the deceased, therefore, she was not entitled for compensation.

(3.) SMT . Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, argued that the Claims Tribunal erred in not applying the multiplier. The Claims Tribunal did not assess income of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Constable in Special Armed Force and was receiving Rs. 5,000/ - per month as salary. She further argued that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years, therefore, the proper multiplier is 16. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced suitably.