CHANDRIKA BAI SAHU Vs. MOHD ASHIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the claimants/appellants dissatisfied of the compensation awarded vide award dated 27. 7. 1994, passed in Claim Case No. 8 of 1992 by III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are thus: One Mohanlal Sahu, a constable in police force of State of M. P. died in motor accident when he was on duty and was travelling in police van No. MPP 3811 on 23. 6. 1991 driven by respondent No. 4 during the course of employment of respondent No. 5 which met with an accident at Narayanpur road because of the collision with truck No. MP-25-5265 driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The legal representatives of the deceased, viz. , widow, appellant No. 1, aged 30 years, appellant Nos. 2 to 5 minor children between 5 to 14, and old parents, appellant Nos. 6 and 7, filed application under Section 166 of the Act to claim compensation of Rs. 6,72,000/- for the death caused in motor accident by the use of the two vehicles. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a categorical finding that both the drivers of the offending vehicles were equally negligent as a result of which the accident occurred and Mohanlal Sahu received multiple injuries who was shifted to hospital and died on 29. 12. 1991. The Tribunal estimated the dependency of Rs. 470/- per month, yearly Rs. 5,640/out of the monthly pay packet of the deceased Rs. 1,950/ -. A multiplier of 16 was applied to the multiplicand of Rs. 5,640/ -. An amount of Rs. 90,240/- was determined as compensation with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i. e. , 17. 6. 1992. The amount so awarded was apportioned in equal proportion and was directed to be paid by the owner, driver and insurer of the truck MP-25-5265 and owner and driver of MPP 3811.

(3.) MR. Umesh Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has estimated the dependency at Rs. 470/- by deducting Rs. 500/- and 1/8th of Rs. 1,450/- towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal further deducted Rs. 800/- towards pay to one of the deceased's sons who was given compassionate appointment. It was submitted that the deceased was maintaining seven dependants. He was getting Rs. 1,950/- and was in regular employment of State Government. Therefore, to augment the multiplicand, prospects of future career ought to have been taken into consideration in terms of money as paid by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). Besides, the deceased could not have afforded on himself to spend Rs. 684/- per month when he was to maintain seven members of the family who were completely dependent on his earning. It was further submitted that the Tribunal also could not have deducted the pay of his son who got compassionate appointment after the death of the deceased. A Division Bench decision of this Court in M. P. Electricity Board v. Ram Mohan Shrivastava 1998 ACJ 651 (MP) and a decision of the Orissa High Court in Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Patra 1992 ACJ 390 (Orissa), were cited.