M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. CHHANIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22-6-1981, the accident took place and as a result of bus No. CPH 8668 having overturned, Shivlal met his death. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was aged 50 years on that date. He left surviving him, his widow and four sons and a daughter. Two sons and a daughter were minors when he died. On the heirs, application, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal, Gwalior, for short, the 'Tribunal' awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- for Shivlal's death with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

(2.) THE appellant in this Court is the owner of the offending motor vehicle afore-mentioned. Shri Mittal has urged several contentions and indeed with great ability, but after looking to the evidence and perusing the judgment of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that our interference with the Award, for reasons to follow, is not at all warranted.

(3.) THE second question, and indeed the main question on which vocal submissions are made by Shri Mittal, is that of the quantum of the compensation awarded He has assailed the Award mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the income tax returns of deceased Shivlal have been misread by the Tribunal and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 17,000/- is not sustainable in law. Let this point be considered first and disposed of. True it is that the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 17,000/- after taking into consideration the income from house property. In other words, the unearned income of the deceased. But, the question also is if that would affect the validity of the Award passed in so far as the question of quantum is concerned. Shri Haswani, appearing for the claimants/respondents, has drawn our attention to the decision in N. Sivammal to submit that the Award as a whole in its entirety, has to be viewed when the question of validity in regard to the quantum of the Award is in issue in any case. If the computation is wrongly done, that can be considered and if on correct computation, the total corpus of the sum awarded is sustainable, then, no interference with such an Award is called for (see, Khargobai, (1986) 1 MPWN 163). In the instant case, it is rightly submitted that the Tribunal erred in 1aw in arriving at total quantum of compensation using the multiplier of tea recokoning the longevity of deceased Shivlal at sixty years. It is contended by Shri Haswani that the view now expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court is that with improved healthcare average life of an Indian can be reckoned very easily at seventy years.