NIRMALA SINGHVI Vs. GOVARDHAN DHRUV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation, the award dated 23rd August, 1996 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.A.C.T.') in claim case No. 19 of 1995 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/- for accidental death of Neelamchand Singhvi, aged about 57 years, a Superintending Engineer in Public Works Department at Raipur, is under challenge.

(2.) IT is not in dispute in this appeal that on 12.11.1993 while Neelamchand Singhvi was returning from the Railway Station to his home by Maruti Van No. M.P.002/0180, it was hit by a truck No. C.P.S. 9754 driven by Respondent/non-applicant Ne. l, owned by Respondent/non-applicant No. 2 and insured by Respondent/non-applicant No. 3. As a result of the accident Neelamchand Singhvi sustained serious injuris and during hospitalization at Government Hospital, Raipur, was shifted to Nagpur where he died on 28.11.1993. After the death of Neelamchand Singhvi the Appellant No. 1/claimant i.e. widow is receiving family pension at Rs. 3,126/- every month. The Appellants/claimants No. 2 and 3 are the son and the daughter of the deceased. Another daughter i.e. the Appellant/claimant No. 4 Ms. Neeti Jain is married. IT is also not in dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of truck No. C.P.S. 9754 and Respondent/non-applicant No. 3 is under a statutory liability to pay compensation.

(3.) MISS Madhu Modi, learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimants urged that the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is niggardly low and contended that the learned M.A.C.T. ought not to have taken into consideration the amount of family pension while reducing the loss of dependency to Rs. 1,000/-because even if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural death, such pension would have been received by the family. Reliance was placed on Smt. Fulmati Bai and Ors. v. Panchamsingh and Ors. : AIR 1998 MP 173. It was next contended that the accident had occurred on 12.11.1993 whereas the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 14.11.94. Placing reliance on United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. : (2002) 6 SCC 281 and V.S. Gowdar v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited : II (2002) ACC 559, a full Bench decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court, it was urged that the correct multiplier to be applied for age 57 years is 9. It was also urged that the Tribunal erred in holding that the married son and daughter who were not the dependents of the deceased were not entitled to compensation. They being legal representatives under Section 166 of the Act could not be denied compensation. Reliance was placed on Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2007 SCW 1962 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. : (1999)1 SCC 90.