NEELAM ASHWINIKUMAR KHURANA Vs. GULAB HIRASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 26-4-1995 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal in Claim Petition No. 121 of 1991 whereby the respondents are direct to pay jointly and severally the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation, have filed this appeal on the contention that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.

(2.) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under : the accident occurred on 14-6-1991 at about 10. 30 a. m. on Nagpur amravati by-pass road and Ashwinikumar died as a result of the accident arising out of the use of two motor vehicles, i. e. ambassador car No. CHA-451 and the truck bearing Registration No. MHV-2276. The truck is owned by respondent No. 1 whereas it was being driven by respondent No. 2 on the relevant date and time and the truck has been duly insured with respondent no. 3. On the fateful day, the deceased was driving the ambassador car and was returning to his home. At that time the truck involved in the accident has come from backside and gave a dash to the car due to which Ashwinikumar sustained grievous injuries including head injury and died on the spot instantaneously. The first information report was lodged at police station gadgenagar, Amravati, on the basis of which Crime No. 184 of 1991 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the truck driver. It is contended that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligence manner by the driver and, therefore, the respondents are solely responsible for causing the accident. At the time of accident the age of Ashwinikumar was 41 years and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/- and he used to receive perquisites like free accommodation, telephone facility, -medical facility etc. The deceased was managing the affairs of M/s. Anil Construction Company, which is a partnership firm which deals in construction work. Shri Dharampal Kapur is one of the partners while the deceased is son-in-law of Dharampal Kapur. Ashwinikumar was entrusted with the construction work on Amravati side and the latter used to pay Rs. 5,000/- as remuneration to the deceased for the maintenance of his family. It is contended that claimant No. 1 is widow, whose age is about 36 years. Claimants Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the age of 15 and 11 years respectively. The appellants/claimants, therefore filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. ten lacs with interest and costs.

(3.) THE respondents combated the claim by filing their written statement and contended that the claimants are not entitled to receive compensation of rs. ten lacs. The parties adduced evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conlusion that regard to the age of the deceased as well as that of the claimants, the suitable multiplier applicable would not be more than 10 years purchase factor. The Tribunal also considered the evidence and recorded the finding that the monthly income of the deceased would not be more than Rs. 5,500/-and after deduction on account of personal living expenses, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,500/- per month or Rs. 18,000/- per year and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. This award passed by the Tribunal is challenged in this appeal.