AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.07.2012 passed by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Chaibasa in connection with Compensation Case No. 39 of 2005. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount.
The fact, in brief, is that the deceased was a driver on a tractor bearing Registration No. BR-18A-0522 and Trailor No. BR-18A-0523. In the intervening night of 7-8th May, 2004, at about 1.30 a.m. While the de-ceased-Gomeya Maria was returning after dropping the labourers at village-Rajbandh, the tractor got turned turtle while negotiating a big pot hole on the kutcha road near village-Pinka as a result he was dumped under the tractor and sustained injury resulting to his death.
The claimants, who are widow and minor son of the deceased-Gomeya Maria, filed an application for grant of compensation against the death of Gomeya Maria and the application was registered as Compensation Case No. 39 of 2005. Learned Tribunal has decided the claim application and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,04,680/- including interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly reduced the monthly income of the deceased from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 1560/-.
It is submitted that the deceased was a driver having valid license is not disputed and he was a professional driver of the motor vehicle. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also incorrect, but in course of extending argument, learned counsel for the appellant has agreed to receive Rs. two lakhs, if paid in the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 6th December, 2014 in the premises of the High Court.
Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the argument and submitted that the owner of the tractor was examined and he himself had stated that the deceased was discharging part-time duty as a driver on his tractor and he was being paid Rs. 60/- per day. Furthermore, the claimants have disclosed the age of the deceased as 21 years, but as per the postmortem report, he was aged about 35 years.
It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly decided just and reasonable compensation and the judgment and award needs no interference.
I have gone through the impugned judgment. It is not disputed that the deceased was a professional driver of the motor vehicle and he was discharging his duty as that of a driver. In any stretch of imagination, driver of the motor vehicle shall not earn less than Rs. 100/- per day. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- and I do not find that the finding of the Tribunal by which he has reduced the income of the deceased is correct. If monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 3,000/-, even after rough calculation, the amount of compensation will go above Rs. Four lakhs.
Since the appellants have agreed to receive Rs. Two lakhs, I do not feel it desirable to go into other aspects of the appeal and, therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. two lakhs as lump sum to the claimants and the Insurance Company shall deposit the cheque drawn in favour of appellant No. 1 before the Lok Adalat, which is scheduled to be held on 6th December, 2014 in the premises of the High Court and the counsel for the appellants is requested to inform the claimants to remain present to receive the cheque. This appeal stands allowed.