UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUSHILA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A head-on collision took place between truck No. CPB 2031 and bus No. CPF 8729 in the afternoon of 21. 6. 1986 near the Dehar Bridge on Maharajpur-Sagar road. One Puranlal, a constable posted at P. S. Maharajpur, died in this accident. He was travelling in the aforesaid truck which was owned by respondent Ganesh Prasad, and was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 2. The bus belonged to the M. P. S. R. T. C, and respondent Ayub was driving it at the relevant time. The widow and minor sons and daughters of the deceased claimed Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

(2.) BY an award dated 1. 7. 1994 in Claim Case No. 58 of 1991, III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar found that the accident was as a result of the negligent driving of both the vehicles. It awarded Rs. 1,08,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. After deducting the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, the balance Rs. 93,000/- was apportioned between the two sets of respondents, directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 54,000/- and respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to pay Rs. 39,000/- to the claimants. This award gave rise to three appeals. Appeal No. 842 of 1994 is by the heirs of the deceased, seeking enhancement. Appeal No. 726 of 1994 is by the insurance company challenging the award on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the truck in violation of the terms of the policy, which would absolve the insurance company from liability. The M. P. S. R. T. C. on its part filed Appeal No. 611 of 1994 challenging the findings of negligence of its driver as well as quantum. It also challenged the validity and propriety of the ratio in which the apportionment was made. All these appeals will be decided by this common order.

(3.) THAT Puranlal lost his life in this accident, is not in dispute. He was a Government servant working as a constable and earning about Rs. 1,000/- per month as salary. His wife Sushila Bai, AW 2, also deposed that besides salary, he used to get T. A. and D. A. He had a pretty large family of 5 children of whom two sons and a daughter were teenagers. A man having so many liabilities would naturally spend the very minimum towards his personal expenses, leaving the bulk of his income for his dependants. We would take the dependency to be Rs. 800/- per month. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 9,600/ -. And since he was aged about 40 years and had a comparatively young wife, and so many children to fend for, the proper multiplier would be 16. The amount of compensation, thus calculated, comes to Rs. 1,53,600/ -. To this should be added Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The amount claimed for funeral expenses is only Rs. 2,000/ -. There is no reason not to allow the same. The total compensation thus comes to Rs. 1,70,600/ -. We do not know as to how the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 1,08,000/- as compensation. We would allow the appeal of the claimants and enhance the compensation amount to Rs. 1,70,600/ -.