S SAIDA BEE Vs. S MD IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) mother, widow and children of s.a. Jabbar (the deceased), who died in an accident caused by a jeep bearing No. Apd-5750, belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the respondents and examined two witnesses as p.ws. Land 2 and marked exs. A-1 toa-6on their behalf. First respondent chose to remain ex parte before the tribunal and in this court also. Second respondent, who filed a counter contesting the claim, did not adduce any oral evidence butmarked e.x. B-1 by consent. The tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep, a wa rded Rs. 2,39,000/- as compensation to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, claimants preferred this appeal.

(2.) since this is an appeal by the claimants, seeking higher compensation than that was awarded, the point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to?

(3.) the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the evidence of P.W. 2, senior assistant in railways at guntakal, clearly shows that the deceased as diesel engine driver was drawing about Rs. 5,299.15 ps. Per month, the tribunal, having rightly taken the contribution of the deceased to the appellants at Rs. 3,600/- per month, erred in deducting Rs. 1,860/- per month from that amount on the ground that the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that subsequent to the death of the deceased, appellants are being paid family pension. Relying on Geethakiimari v. Rubber Board, Krishna Kinra v. Dalip Singh, Bhoj Raj v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kusumalatatrivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Sukhi v. Hem Singh, and MRS. Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn.. He contended that family pension cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the contribution of the deceased victim in a motor accident case to his dependents. Relying on Jyoti Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh and K. Vasanth v. G. Appaiah he contended balance of service of the deceased should be taken as the relevant multiplier. Heard the learned counsel for second respondent.