ASHOK Vs. NARMADA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 6.1.1995 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa, whereby a sum of Rs. 57,600 was awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 as compensation for the death of her son Dinesh, aged about 26 years against the appellant. The death occurred due to injuries suffered in a road accident wherein a motor cycle No. MP-12-1404 slipped and fell on the road. It was being driven by the owner Ashok and the deceased Dinesh was sitting on the pillion seat. Both of them suffered injuries but Dinesh died the next day. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the mother of Dinesh. The compensation of Rs. 57,600 was awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 against appellant No. 1 and not against the insurance company. The appellant has raised two-fold contentions: (1) that insurance company should have been made liable when it was found established that the motor cycle was insured comprehensively, and (2) that the amount awarded was excessive.

(2.) After perusing the evidence available on the record of the Tribunal, I find that the assessment of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 600 p.m. at least as an employee at private shop, was not at all excessive and was rather on the lower side. The Tribunal rejected the evidence that the deceased used to earn Rs. 600 p.m. extra by doing tailoring work. I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the dependency of the mother who is a widow to the extent of Rs. 300 p.m. should be taken as established. The Tribunal thus found the dependency of Rs. 3,600 per year and used the multiplier of 16 to reach the figure of Rs. 57,600.

(3.) The Tribunal had found that the vehicle was insured but on the basis of pronouncement of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Santosh Kumari, 1989 ACJ 466 (P&H), held that the insurance company was not liable to pay the insurance claim.