SHIV KUMAR Vs. MALESHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the dependents of the deceased-Ramadhar who died in an accident which took place on 5.4.1995 involving a motor vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent-Insurance Company and driven by the first respondent. The appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before 7th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur on 15.4.1995 and the same is numbered as Claim Case No. 6/95 claiming total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The claim petition was opposed by the respondents by filing written statement. The M.A.C.T., having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that actionable negligence could not be attributed to the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore, it exonerated all the respondents from liability from paying compensation. Hence, this appeal under Section 173 of the Act by the aggrieved claimants.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and the original records of the M.A.C.T. placed before us. We do not think that the M.A.C.T. is justified and acted legally in recording the finding that there is no legal evidence to attribute actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle or the motor vehicle involved in the accident. It is true that the two eye witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. filed by the local police were not examined as witnesses by the claimants. At the same time it needs to be noticed that even the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident did not step into the witness box to explain how the accident had taken place. In the absence of any other evidence, the only piece of evidence available on record is the F.I.R. filed by the local police after investigating into the accident. According to this document, the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The M. A.C.T. has completely eschewed that piece of evidence while recording its finding regarding the issue relating to the actionable negligence. Therefore, we hold that the accident had taken place due to actionable negligence on the part of the first respondent- driver in driving the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

(3.) IT is well settled that the Tribunal or this Court need not be bound by the pleading law, particularly, while computing just and reasonable compensation as contemplated under the Act. Time has come to think loudly that in computing the loss of dependency, the Court cannot take into account exploited wages which an employer might have paid to the deceased-employee or wage-earner. The accident had taken place on 5.4.1995. A man having a family consisting of mother, wife, young children having a shelter over his head with two square meals and some provisions for rest of the life could not have lived without earning Rs. 100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, we think that it is fair to take daily wage of the deceased at Rs.100/- or Rs.3,000/- per month. Out of this Rs. 3,000/-, we have to deduct one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, actual loss of dependency per month would be Rs.2,000/-. The deceased was aged about 45 years on the date of accident and his demise. Therefore, appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing loss of dependency is 15. Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.2000 x 12 x 15).