CHOTI BAI Vs. SHARAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the claimants-parents, who claim enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of their son Babulal, aged about 25 years.

(2.) SECOND Member, Motor. Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore vide its award dated 30-10-83 in Claims Case No. 188 of 1981 held that Babulal who was a Harijan and was doing the job of a sweeper died in a motor accident on 10-4-1981 at about 6 p.m. by the use of truck No. CPO-7477 near Dhar Naka, Indore. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The owner of the truck at the relevant time was respondent No. 1 and the truck was insured by the respondent No. 3 the New India Assurance Company. After holding the truck driver rash and negligent, the Tribunal in paragraphs 16 to 20 considered the monthly dependency of the parents at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. By adopting a multiplier of ten years, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 6000/- out of which Rs. 1000/- were deducted for the uncertainties of life and an amount of Rs. 5000/- was awarded to the parents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

(3.) SHRI B.K. Samdhani, appearing for respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company contended that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are not retrospective and as such compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of that section. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of the Rajasthan High Court in Yeshoda Kumari and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur and Ors. 1984 ACJ 716, and on the case of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Mani Gupta and Ors. v. Mohammad Ibrahim and Ors. 1985 ACJ 476. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the award is not too low and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, looking to the age of the parents, is correct. Another submission was made by the learned Counsel that the widow of the deceased has not been joined as a party to the proceedings, and as such the claimants are not entitled to more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal and it does not call for interference in appeal. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a case of the Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 1977 ACJ 414 Kulwant Singh v. Nandkaur and Ors. and on a case of the Madras High Court reported in 1970 ACJ 17 Krishnammal and Ors. v. Messrs. Associated Apparel (P) Ltd. and Anr.