NIRMALA Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 29. 8. 2005 passed by the learned member, M. A. C. T. , Indore (M. P.) in Claim case No. 79 of 2005. By impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of rs. 4,18,000 for the death of one kundanlal. This appeal is filed by claimants for enhancement as according to claimants, the compensation awarded to claimants by the Tribunal is on lower side and it should be enhanced in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, if so, to what extent and under what head (s) ?

(2.) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle or claimant or who is liable to pay compensation, etc. and whether offending vehicle is insured or not? It is for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal and secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour and against the respondents are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/ driver, or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our order by detailing facts on all these issues which are not really necessary.

(3.) IT is a death case. On 20. 5. 2004, one kundanlal, aged 42 years, a businessman doing the business of hosiery, died in vehicular accident. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle seeking compensation for the death of kundanlal. It was contested only by insurer whereas driver and owner remained ex parte. Parties adduced evidence. However, by impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000. It was held that though the yearly income of the deceased Kundanlal from his business is around Rs. 95,000 but for dependency it works out to Rs. 29,000. In the opinion of tribunal, a sum of Rs. 66,000 was being earned by his 2 sons (applicant Nos. 2 and 3) and hence only a sum of Rs. 29,000 was held as loss to the estate for determining the compensation payable to claimants. Applying multiplier of 14 and awarding a sum of Rs. 12,000 for conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000. It is this determination, which is impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending that what is awarded by Tribunal by way of compensation payable to claimants. Applying the multiplier of 14 and awarding a sum of Rs. 12,000 for conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000. It is this determination, which is impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending that what is awarded by Tribunal by way of compensation to the claimants is on lower side hence it be enhanced.