VIJAY SHARMA Vs. NANAK IKON STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 1.7.1998 passed by VIIth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 141/86.

(2.) THE claimants' case, in brief, was that on 9.2.1996 deceased Prema Sharma, the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, was travelling in Maruti Car No. M.P. 09-N/0770, belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. They were coming from Onkareshwar to Indore. Near Indore, the driver Sachchanand drove this car in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a truck, as a result of which Prema Sharma and other occupants of the car sustained injuries. Prema Sharma died on the spot. The deceased was helping in the business of Computer and Typing carried on by appellant No. 1 and she was earning Rs 3,000/- per month. The appellants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim. Respondent No. 2, Insurance Company inter alia averred that the driver of Maruti Car had no valid driving licence. Thus, the owner of the car committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, it was not liable to pay compensation. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No. M.P. 09-N/0770, as a result of which Prema Sharma sustained injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount.

(3.) WE considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both sides and perused the record. The fact of driving of Maruti Car in rash and negligent manner and occurring of accident has not been disputed before us. The question for consideration is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It has come in the evidence of Vijay Kumar Sharma that his wife Prema Sharma was helping him in running his business of Computer and Typing. He and his wife combindly used to earn Rs. 67,000/- per month. In the year 1995-96 he paid Rs. 1,300/- as income tax. He produced the Registration Card of his shop Ex. P7 and also the copy of income-tax return Ex. P6. Vijay Kumar Sharma further stated that due to the death of his wife Prema Sharma, he had to engage one servant for cooking and other servant for washing utensils, clothes and cleaning the house. He had to pay Rs. 500-600/- per month to the servants respectively. Vijay Kumar Sharma admitted in cross-examination that his wife was matriculate and she did not know typing. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that it was not proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- or more per month. But from the evidence of Vijay Kumar Sharma, it is clear that he was required to engage two servants whom he was paying Rs. 1,100/- per month. Even in Schedule 2 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, notional income for compensation to those who had no income has been provided Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Looking to the fact that due to the death of the deceased, Vijay Kumar Sharma had to spend Rs. 1,100/- per month for engaging two servants. The servants work only for 7 or 8 hours while the family members work day and night for the welfare of the family. He has been deprived of her services which she was rendering in running his business. In view of it we assess the earning of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month. The learned Tribunal committed error in assessing the earning of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month. On deducting l/3rd of Rs. 1,800/- for personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 1,200/- per month and yearly Rs. 14,400/-. It has come in the evidence of Vijay Kumar Sharma and postmortem report that the age of the deceased was 35 years. In view of Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we select multiplier of 17. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to (14,400 x 17) Rs. 2,44,800/-. Appellant No. 1 is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. On addition of this amount, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,51,800/-. It is rounded up to Rs. 2,52,000/-.