HEERALAL PANDEY Vs. SUSHEEL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur dated 25.4.1994 in M.V. Case No. 3 of 1994. Claimants are Heeralal Pandey (father) and Gangotri Bai (mother) of deceased Raghunandan Prasad Pandey. During the pendency of this case, Gangotri Bai has died, leaving Heeralal Pandey sole appellant in the case, seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) On 1.11.1988, Raghunandan Prasad Pandey (the deceased) was coming from Barela to Jabalpur on his Luna on the left side of the road. When he reached in front of Military Dairy Farm, he was hit by vehicle No. MBK 7425 driven rashly and negligently by Raju alias Riyaz Ahmad, owned by Susheel Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jabalpur. Report of accident was lodged at Gorabazar Sub Chowki of Police Station, Cantonment, Jabalpur and a criminal case was registered. Vehicle involved in accident was impounded. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver, otherwise accident would not have taken place. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injury on head, apart from other injuries suffered by him on other parts of body. Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the driver and the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation. Compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

(3.) Through this appeal, award of the Tribunal has been assailed. Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for appellant, submits that the award is clearly unsustainable because it does not award just compensation to the claimant. Deceased was a young man of 22 years. He was graduate. He had taken up assignment in the Adult Education Programme of Government of M.P. Although he was being paid Rs. 300 per month at that time, but he had bright chances of securing promotions and receiving higher salary. He was also assisting his parents in agricultural operations. With this background, compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is thoroughly unreasonable and unjust. Moreover, multiplier of 8 for determination of compensation has been erroneously applied by the Claims Tribunal resulting in grant of low compensation.