MOTIRAM ALIAS LOMA Vs. TAJ MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of M.F. A. No. 411 of 1986 (Bhuriya v. Taj Mohammad). Both these appeals arise out of joint trial of two claim petitions arising out of one and the same accident. The appellants in both these appeals were claimants before the Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved by two separate awards made by the Claims Tribunal, they have preferred these two separate appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE appellant, Bhuriya, in M.F.A. No. 411 of 1986 and the deceased Pannalal were graziers. On 29.8.1983 at about 4.30 or 5 a.m. both these persons had gone to the forest along with their cattle. The cattle -heads were grazing by the side of the road, whereas the appellant, Bhuriya and the deceased Pannalal were sleeping on the road. In the meanwhile, bus No. MPN 8231, driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3, came from the side of Shekhpura and while proceeding towards Khandwa ran over the appellant, Bhuriya and the deceased Pannalal. As a result of the accident, Pannalal died whereas the appellant, Bhuriya, received severe injuries on his thigh. Accordingly, after the accident, Bhuriya and the legal representatives of deceased Pannalal filed claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal which was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 26,250/ - to the appellant, Bhuriya and a sum of Rs. 21,750 to the legal representatives of the deceased Pannalal. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of the amounts of compensation.

(3.) SO far as the appeal of the legal representatives of deceased Pannalal is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has come to a finding in para 20 of the impugned award that the deceased was 18 years of age on the date of his death and that his monthly income was Rs. 160/ - as disclosed from the evidence on record although in claim petition it was claimed at the rate of Rs. 150/ -per month. After so holding, the Claims Tribunal estimated personal expenditure of the deceased at Rs. 60/ - per month and his contribution to the family was assessed at Rs. 100/ - per month. Looking to the status of the deceased and his family, I am of the view that personal expenditure of the deceased at Rs. 60/ - per month assessed by the Claims Tribunal is excessive. It ought to have been determined at Rs. 30/ - per month. I am further of the view that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the multiple of 20 years while assessing the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. It has been worked out to Rs. 24,000/ - at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month. According to me, it ought to have been worked out at Rs. 31,200/ - at the rate of Rs. 130/ - per month. Besides this amount of Rs. 31,200, the legal representatives of the deceased Pannalal are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - awarded to them towards mental pain and agony. In this way, the total amount of compensation ought to have been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 36,200, whereas it was determined at Rs. 29,000/ -.