ANJU MUKHI Vs. SATISH KUMAR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in M. C. C. No. 1 of 1989 vide award dated 1. 9. 1992 passed by Vth Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) THE facts relevant to this appeal are these. One Avinash Mukhi, aged about 30 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 was employed as a Medical Representative with UNICHEM Laboratories Limited, Bombay and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,312/- per month plus Rs. 25/- per day as city allowance, died on 10. 2. 1985 iri a motor accident. He left behind the widow, appellant No. 1 aged about 29 years and minor son aged about 3 years and father Harichand Mukhi aged about 75 years, who filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on 4. 4. 1985 and claimed compensation of Rs. 12,33,000/- for the death of Avinash Mukhi caused in the motor accident. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal the appellant No. 1 widow, remarried on 18. 8. 1985 with Sunil Mukhi, younger brother of the deceased. Father, applicant No. 3 also died during the pendency of the proceedings, accordingly his name was deleted from the array of the applicants in the cause title vide order of the Tribunal dated 30. 7. 1991.

(3.) APPELLANT No. 1 in her statement stated that her in-laws got her remarried with her brother-in-law (devar) for her safety and security. Her second husband is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month which is not sufficient for her livelihood. In para 7 of her cross-examination, she admitted that she is happy with her marital life. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties and material on record, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal after determining the dependency for the appellant No. 2 minor son as Rs. 600 per month, yearly Rs. 7,200/-, by applying the multiplier of 15, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till payment to the appellant No. 2. No compensation was awarded to appellant No. 1 because of her remarriage.