MANJULA Vs. BOMBAY TRANSPORT SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 13.12.1995 passed by II M.A.C.T., Dhar in Claim Case No. 66 of 1993.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that on 9.12.1990 deceased Mahesh was going to Kerwa from Dhamnod on his motor cycle and when he was crossing Sanjay Bridge, respondent No. 2 Rafiq Khan, who was the driver of the truck No. MP 09-3001 drove the truck rashly and negligently and dashed Mahesh resulting in his death. Appellant No. 1 Manjula is widow of the deceased. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Nirmala and Pinky are the minor daughters of the deceased. Modilal and Dwarkabai are the father and mother of the deceased Mahesh. All the claimants-appellants filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for a claim of Rs. 5,00,000 towards the compensation. The Tribunal by impugned award dated 13.12.1995 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,34,000 towards compensation taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 700 per month after applying multiplier of 16 and also awarded Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and awarded Rs. 1,34,400 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 15.3.1991. After appreciating the evidence of the parties the Tribunal gave the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 driver Rafiq Khan. The said truck was insured with the respondent No. 3 insurance company.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Altaf Khan, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence about the income of the deceased and its dependency has also not been calculated properly and not applied the proper multiplier. His further submission is that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the age of the applicant. As per the post-mortem report age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of accident whereas the Tribunal had taken the age of deceased 38 years for applying the multiplier. In reply the learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the award and submitted that the same is reasonable and justified and needs no enhancement.