MUKHTYAR SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS, who are the parents, mother and father of the deceased have filed this appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 27. 11. 1997 in the claim Case No. 40 of 1995 for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Dilbagsingh was working as a driver on truck No. MP 07-G 1152 and on 20. 10. 1995 he was coming from Bombay to Gwalior. In the way near Sendhva barrier adjoining to village Balsamund, one tyre of the truck got punctured. Deceased dilbagsingh and deceased Tarsemsingh, who was working as second driver on the truck were changing the wheel of the truck. At that time one truck No. UP 80-E 9431 came from back side. It is stated that the said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by Amar Singh, respondent no. 1, who was driving the said vehicle and it dashed both the drivers. As a result of this accident, both died on the spot. Crime was registered at P. S. Nagalwadi, district Khargone and thereafter the claimants, those who are the parents; mother and father of the deceased Dilbagsingh filed claim petition for claiming compensation. Claim was contested by respondents. After recording evidence of the parties, learned tribunal found that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck No. UP 80-E 9431 and because of the accident both drivers died on the spot. Tribunal has also held that the aforesaid offending truck was insured with the insurance company, respondent no. 3 and the company is liable for payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,68,000 to the claimants. Claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence on record. Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not properly applied the multiplier, which is applicable on the age of the mother. The age of the mother is around 50 years and for the age group of 45-50, multiplier of 13 is applicable but instead tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation in the head of loss of love and affection, loss to estate and in the head of funeral expenses. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the award is just and proper and there is no scope for any enhancement in the same.