Bhagwan Singh and Others vs Sugriva Singh and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the award dated 8th November, 2004 passed by MACT, Vidisha in Claim Case No. 18/04 whereby claim petition filed by the appellants on account of death of Harkunwar Bai in a motor accident which took place on 18th February, 2004 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 92,000/- was awarded, present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits -that the deceased Harkunwar Bai was aged 40 years at the time of accident which took place on 18th February, 2004. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 92,000/- after assessing the income @ Rs. 6,000/- per year. It is submitted that in a death case amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4/Insurance Company submits that since the deceased was travelling in the tractor trolley which is meant for agricultural purposes and was insured only for agricultural purposes, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 4 liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

From perusal of the record it is evident that the income of the deceased as assessed by the learned Tribunal @ Rs. 6,000/- is on lower side, which ought to have been on notional basis and multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied. Similarly on other heads also amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. In view of this appellants are entitled for the following amount:

In view of this, appellants shall be entitled for total sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- instead of Rs. 92,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,13,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application. So far as liability of respondent No. 4 is concerned, since the deceased was travelling in a tractor trolley, which was not meant for carrying the passengers, therefore, the respondent No. 4 cannot be held liable for payment of enhanced amount. In view of this, appellants shall be at liberty to recover the enhanced amount from the rest of the respondents. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed off.