PARVIN BOBBY Vs. PARIMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both these appeals (M. A. Nos. 903 and 905 of 2004)arise out of a common award passed by the third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, morena (for short 'claims Tribunal') in claim Case Nos. 6 and 15 of 2004, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) APPELLANTS in both these appeals are the legal heirs of deceased Shahbuddin and bakil Singh. Shahbuddin and Bakil Singh were employed as drivers by one Parimal singh, who was the owner of truck bearing no. MP 06-E 2773. On the date of accident, i. e. , 15. 11. 2002 both Shahbuddin and bakil Singh were coming from Guntur to delhi in the said truck. The truck was being driven by Shahbuddin and Bakil Singh was sitting next to him. When the truck reached a turning near Hatnoor, Police Station guddi, District Adilabad (AP), the truck dashed against another truck coming from opposite direction bearing No. MP 28-U 222. As a result of collision between both the trucks Shahbuddin and Bakil Singh sustained serious injury and succumbed to the same on the spot of the accident itself.

(3.) CLAIMING compensation on the basis of wages of Shahbuddin and Bakil Singh being Rs. 4,000 per month and Rs. 60 per day as daily allowance claim applications were filed under section 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'act of 1988') before the Claims Tribunal. On the basis of the evidence and material which came on record the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the salary of the deceased shahbuddin and Bakil Singh at Rs. 3,000 per month and after applying the relevant multiplier, assessed the compensation of rs. 4,32,000 each, to this a further sum of rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards taxi charges were added. Thus the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,41,000 in each case. Seeking enhancement of the compensation and complaining improper appreciation of evidence in the matter of determining the monthly earning of the deceased persons, the appellants have filed these appeals. Taking us through the pleadings made by parimal Singh, respondent No. 1, owner of the truck, who in his written statement admitted that he was paying Rs. 4,000 per month to the deceased Shahbuddin and bakil Singh with daily allowance of Rs. 60 per day it was emphasised by Mr. Yogesh singhal, learned counsel for the appellants that in absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave error in refusing the aforesaid and so also committed error in reducing the salary to Rs. 3,000 per month. Accordingly, only on this ground enhancement of compensation is sought for and the prayer is made that compensation be reassessed by treating the salary of the deceased persons at rs. 4,000 per month with a daily allowance of Rs. 60 per day. That apart it is stated that on other heads also the compensation given is on the lower side and, therefore, increase in the same is prayed for. It is further stated that as deceased Shahbuddin was having a large family consisting of his wife and six minor children, therefore, the compensation awarded by learned Claims tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses is not correct, the dependency should be assessed at 1/5th in place of 1/3rd towards self expenses. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Singhal places reliance on the following judgments: (i) A Division Bench judgment of this court in case of Mithlesh Sikarwar v. Bhagwan Singh Kirar, 2006 ACJ 766 (MP), with regard to deduction of 1/5th of the salary for personal expenses of the deceased; and (ii) In the case of Prahlad Shivhare v. Rajeev Kumar, 2007 (II) MPWN 4, with regard to his contention that salary of a truck driver at the relevant time was rs. 4,000 per month.