RUKMABAI KULMI Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant against the award dated June 30, 1980, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 97 of 1979 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation in respect of the death of the deceased, Sadhu, who died as a result of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. MPI 3255.

(2.) ON July 14, 1979, the deceased, Sadhu, a young boy aged about 20 years, was walking along the road from his house towards the market when the aforesaid truck driven by the driver, Babukhan, respondent No. 2, came from behind with high speed and knocked down Sadhu who was crushed under its wheels and died instantaneously on the spot. The claimant is the mother of the deceased aged about 55 years, who had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 35,300 against the owner and the driver of the offending truck in respect of the death of the deceased, Sadhu, joining the insurer-respondent No. 3 as the third non-applicant in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that Sadhu died as a result of the accident caused by the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, respondent No. 2. As regards compensation, the learned Tribunal estimated the loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 only and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 as a lump sum payment. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the death of the deceased who was aged about 20 years and had some school education, was too meagre and deserves to be raised adequately. He further submitted that though the accident took place in the year 1979, yet by way of compensation the learned Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 15,000 under Section 92a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), even though Section 92a has been introduced in the Act by the Amendment Act 47 of 1982 on October 1, 1982. According to the learned counsel, Section 92a of the Act is to be applied to all pending cases irrespective of the date on which the accident occurred. He placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shantabai S. Dhume, AIR 1987 Bom 52 ; [1989] 65 Comp Cas 206, 211 which lays down as under (head-note of AIR) :