Chandan Singh and Another vs Hasib Khan and Others

V.K. Agarwal, J.

This appeal is directed against the award dt. 18.2.98 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 4/97 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur, awarding a sum of Rs. 52,200/- as compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'' for short).

The relevant facts not in dispute stated in brief are that the deceased Munna was the son of claimants/Appellants. He was employed as conductor by the owner of offending vehicle - truck No. M.B.J. 4151. The Respondent No. 1 Haseeb Khan was driving the said vehicle on the date of accident i.e. on 11.10.96. It is also not in dispute that, while the truck was being reversed at Pachmari road, Pipariya, the deceased Munna was crushed under the said truck and died on the spot. The claimants/Appellants filed a petition u/s 166 of the Act, claiming compensation on account of death of their son Munna.

The learned tribunal after assessment of evidence and material on record, recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of deceased Munna as well as of Respondent No. 1, driver Haseeb Khan. It was also held that the deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month and monthly dependency was calculated to Rs. 500/- and thus to Rs. 6.000/-annually. Multiplier of 15 was applied considering the age of claimants/ Appellants as well as deceased and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of estate was granted and thus a total sum of Rs. 87,000/- was determined. It was further held by the tribunal that, since the deceased was contributorily negligent, the liability of the driver was to the extent of 60% only. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 52,200/- was awarded.

Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that the learned tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was contributorily negligent. It was further contended that the amount of compensation is on the lower side, inasmuch as, the deceased was a young man earning about Rs. 2,000/- per month. Hence, it has been prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced.

Learned Counsel for Respondents however, supported the award.

It is not in dispute that the deceased Munna was a cleaner in the offending vehicle. He sustained fatal injuries, while the truck was being reversed by Respondent No. 1. In the above context, the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had pleaded that the deceased died as he slipped, while the truck was being reversed. However, the Respondents have not led any evidence on the above aspect of the matter. Respondent No. 1 Haseeb Khan though, examined himself, but has not stated anything about the deceased having slipped, while the truck was being reversed by him. His statement only indicates that the deceased got crushed under the truck, while the same being reversed by him.

The claimants/Appellants have examined Roop Kumar Jain (A.W.1), who is Home Guard Constable. His statement would indicate that the Respondent No. 1 negligenty reversed the truck, while the deceased was removing the stone from under the wheel of truck. He has also lodged marg intimation, which was later recorded as first information report, as per Ex.P-1 to the above effect.

In view of above, it is clear that the truck was either rashly or negligently driven by Respondent No. 1/driver Haseeb Khan, resulting in death of the deceased Munna. There is no evidence to hold that the deceased was also negligent or responsible for the accident.

Accordingly, the finding of learned tribunal that the deceased Munna was also contributorily negligent, does not appear to be justified and is set aside. Instead it is held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver/Respondent no, 1 Haseeb Khan.

Solar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the driver Haseeb Khan (N.A.W.1) on cross examination has stated that, he was getting a salary of Rs. 1,200/- per month. In the circumstances, the conductor/deceased would not have been getting more than that amount as his salary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, monthly dependency of claimants/Appellants deserves to be fixed at Rs. 600/- per month. Thus annually it comes to Rs. 7,200/-. Multiplier of 16 deserves to be applied, considering the age of deceased as well as that of claimants/Appellants and thus the amount would work out to Rs. 1,15,200/-, to this deserves to be added Rs, 4800/- as funeral and other expenses. Thus, the amount of compensation would work out to be Rs. 1,20,000/-

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, The amount of Rs, 52,200/-awarded by learned tribunal in favour of claimants/Appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1,20000/- (Rupees One lac twenty thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition, till payment thereof. The amount if any, which may have been paid by Respondents towards impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount hereby awarded. The costs of this appeal shall, however be borne by the parties, as incurred.