AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Samvatsar, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging an award dated 24th January, 1995 passed by Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Case No. 258/94 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to claimant Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of their son Chowkhariya.
Facts of the case are that one Chowkhariya who was aged 20 years and was the son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant Nos. 3 to 6 died in a motor accident held on 19th January, 1991. Appellant Nos. 3 to 6 being the brothers of the deceased were not awarded any compensation as they are not Class I heirs. Appellant No. 2 who is the mother of the deceased is the only Class I heir and, therefore, Class II heirs are not entitled for any compensation. Claims Tribunal, therefore, has rightly refused to pass any award in their favour. As regards mother of the deceased is concerned, she is the only person entitled for the claim of compensation. As per the claim petition deceased Chowkhariya was 20 years old and was a driver. He was getting Rs. 700/- per month from driving a vehicle. He had also some agricultural land from which he had a separate income.
Court below has held that the appellants-claimants Rave failed to prove that Chowkhariya was earning Rs. 700/- per month from driving. Court below has not discussed any evidence in detail on this point. Claimants in order to prove their case have examined witness RW. 1 Badamibai who has stated in her statement that her son was earning Rs. 700/- per month. Respondents in their cross-examination could not point out anything to show that this statement made by her is not reliable. Respondents have also not examined any witness to contradict the statement of Badamibai. Thus, the statement of Badamibai that her son Chowkhariya was earning Rs. 700/- per month is unrebutted.
Thus, it is held that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 700/- per month. Thus, the monthly dependency will come to Rs. 475/- per month. On the basis of monthly dependency of Rs. 475/-, yearly dependency would come to Rs. 5,700/-. The deceased was unmarried and is not survived by any issue. Looking to the fact, the multiplier is to be made applicable on the basis of the age of the mother i.e., appellant No. 2 who was 45 years old at the time of accident, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable. Only applying the multiplier of 13 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,700/- x 13 = Rs. 74,100/-. Thus, the amount of compensation after applying the multiplier of 13 is Rs. 74,100/-. Claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation for which the claimants are entitled is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 76,100/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Mr. Agarwal, Counsel for Insurance Company urged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle in question was used for other than agricultural purposes. He further submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the negligence and, therefore, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed and the amount of interim compensation be returned to the Insurance Company.
As regards liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Court below has held that the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the said finding, hence the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise this point in this appeal. It is not necessary for the claimants to prove the negligence for getting the compensation in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, . Thus, in view of this judgment of Apex Court the arguments advanced by Counsel for Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
Appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs.
Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-.