VIMALADEVI Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is of compensation in the award passed by the filed by claimants under section 173 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter re- District Ratlam in Claim Case No. 18 of ferred to as 'the Act') assailing inadequacy 2000.

(2.) The claim petition was filed by the appellants under section 163-A read with section 166 of the Act claiming the amount of compensation of Rs. 17,60,000 in respect of death of Suresh Chandra Tyagi, who died in the accident on 30.11.1999. According to the claimants tractor bearing No. MP 14-H 3515 with trolley bearing No. MP 14-0567 loaded with sand was going to village Roopnagar, Tehsil Jaora, when its left side wheel got punctured. However, the tractor and trolley was standing on the middle of the road without any indicator and without adopting any safety measures specified under the Act. The deceased Suresh Chandra Tyagi, who was A.S.I. in Police Department, while on patrolling duty on Mhow-Neemuch Road was going to Jaora by motor cycle. At that time in night while taking side from the vehicle, which was coming from opposite direction collided with the said tractor-trolley of the respondent No. 2, standing in middle of the road negligently and received severe injuries resulting in his death.

(3.) The insurance company denied the claim of claimants as stated in the claim petition inter alia taking defence that it is the deceased himself, who collided with the trolley, which was standing. However, there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. It was further said that the trolley was loaded with sand, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal while passing the award recorded a finding that the tractor and trolley was standing in middle of the road without indicators, however, due to negligence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the accident took place, wherein Suresh Chandra Tyagi, A.S.I. of the Police Department died. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that violation of the terms and conditions of the policy has not been found proved and the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent No. 3. While determining the compensation the Tribunal observed that deceased was receiving pay Rs. 6,616 as per payslip, Exh. P9 but because the widow of the deceased employee is getting pension of Rs. 3,000 per month and appellant No. 2 has been appointed on compassionate ground and hence the amount of pension and salary from the gross salary of the deceased be treated as loss of earnings, which comes to Rs. 1,550 and by applying the multiplier of 13, total loss of earnings was calculated at Rs. 2,41,800 and by adding Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 8,000 for loss to estate and love and affection and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses; total amount of compensation Rs. 2,56,800 was awarded by the Tribunal.