GEETA TYADE Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'loss' of a 'near and Dear' can neither be assessed nor can be compensated in terms of 'money'. How the loss of husband by a young widow, at the threshold of her married life; or the loss of father by a suckling child, who is yet to learn the alphabets of 'life'; or, the loss of the only son by the parents in the evening of their life, can be assessed, much less compensated, in terms of 'money'? Their 'loss' is not an equation of arithmatics, like the one of 'loss and Profit', in the 'business world'. 'compensation' to the dependents of a person, loosing life in a motor accident, is only an attempt, in a welfare state, to wipe out the tears from their eyes, and to prevent the further aggravation of their grief, sorrow and sufferings due to the imminent financial crisis, resulting from the untimely death of the bread winner of their family. Attempts are always made to assess and award just and adequate compensation in a motor claim case. Of late the Courts have preferred the 'multiplier Method', for assessing the compensation in such cases. It is now settled that 'multiplier Method' is more logical and sound. The Courts, while applying 'multiplier Method', are first to arrive at the 'multiplicand, and then by multiplying it by the chosen 'multiplier, just and fair compensation is arrived at. The error, committee by the Tribunal, in arriving at the 'multiplicant', has given rise to the filing of this appeal by the claimants, under section 173, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act'), for enhancement of the compensation awarded by VIIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, vide award dated 26-7-1995, passed in M. C. C. No. 169/93.

(2.) THE claimants are the widow and four children of deceased Prabhakar Tyade, who died at the age of 35 years, in an unfortunate motor accident, which occurred in the noon of 22-6-1991, as his scooter was dashed by respondent No. 2, who was driving Jeep No. MPD-9743, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 16,09,700/-, as compensation, for the death of Prabhakar Tyade, alleging that he was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, and was also getting bonus of Rs. 4,000/- per annum. Respondents 1 and 2, in their separate written statements, though admitted the fact of the accident and the death of Prabhakar Tyade, on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident, but denied that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the jeep driver. On the contrary, it was pleaded that the accident had occurred on account of the sole negligence of the scooterist, who was trying to take right turn by short cut. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company, also filed its written statement in line with the written statements of the owner and the driver.