MANKUBAI Vs. VEER ABHIMANYU GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimants have called in question the propriety of the award dated 28.2.97 whereby First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Murwara has determined the quantum of compensation at Rs. 79,000/ - for the death of deceased Vishram.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that on 19.6.87 in the morning hours when deceased Vishram was proceeding with his wife Manku Bai with some grocery items in a truck bearing registration No. MPK -3689 it met -with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver respondent No. 2. In the accident said Vishram sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to them. The present appellants as claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35/87 before the Claims Tribunal pleading inter -alia that deceased Vishram was running a grocery shop and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/ -. It was putforth in the claim petition that on the date of accident he was aged about 40 years and was contributing a substantial sum from his income to the family. They also claimed Rs. 50,000/ - towards mental agony and other losses. In toto, a claim of Rs. 5,80,000/ - was putforth before the Tribunal. The owner and the driver remained exparte. The insurer filed its written statement wherein it accepted that the vehicle in question had a valid policy having duly insured with it. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 750/ - and after allowing deduction of 1/3rd fixed the contribution at Rs. 500/ -. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased to be between 40 and 45 years and applied multiplier of 12. It also granted Rs. 5,000/ - towards loss of consortium. Computing in this manner, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,000/ -.

(3.) MR . Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurer in his turn, has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased and there is no error in it. However, he has conceded that if the age of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal is accepted, multiplier should be 15.