Pinki and Others vs Swamilal Patel and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—This is claimants appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 15.7.2001 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 35 of 2000 and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Naresh who is said to be working as an electrician. It is stated that on 30.3.2000 at about 12.45 in the afternoon Naresh was standing in front of his shop and repairing a tractor which had some electrical problems when a truck bearing No. MPG 5867 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 came and dashed against the tractor, as a result Naresh sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Claiming Naresh to be aged about 26 years old and earning a salary of Rs. 6,000 per month, compensation was claimed. The learned Tribunal, after assessing the facts and circumstances of the case, assessed the age of deceased at 23 years on the basis of Exh. P5, post-mortem report and annual income at Rs. 18,000 after deducting 1/3rd for self expenses, dependency has been assessed at Rs. 12,000 per annum and compensation of Rs. 2,04,000 has been awarded. To this, further a sum of Rs. 26,000 on all other heads is added and total compensation of Rs. 2,30,000 is awarded. It is the case of the petitioner that compensation awarded is very much on the lower side. Deceased Naresh was working as electrician and, therefore, would be earning at least Rs. 200 per day. Inviting our attention to the judgments rendered in the case of Nirmala v. Fazal Khan 2007 (1) MPWN 23; Pachki Bai and Others Vs. Mansha Ram and Others, and Mohd. Latif and Another Vs. Rashid Khan and Another, . Mr. B.D. Verma tried to submit that considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid case assessment of salary should be made to Rs. 6,000 per month and after considering the age of deceased to be 26 years as per statement of wife the compensation should be calculated.

Refuting the aforesaid the insurance company submitted that as proper compensation is awarded, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for parties at length and perused the record.

As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, no documentary evidence is adduced with regard to the same. On the contrary in the post-mortem report age of deceased is shown 23 years and the Tribunal has accepted the same in the absence of cogent documentary evidence with regard to age of deceased. Accordingly in assessing the age of deceased as 23 years and applying the multiplier of 17 no error is committed warranting interference. However, in assessing the annual income of deceased at Rs. 18,000, we are of the considered view that Tribunal has committed error. Evidence available on record clearly indicates that the deceased Naresh was working as electrician and performing the electric work on tractors and other motor vehicles. Even though there is no documentary evidence with regard to his actual earnings, the earnings of a mechanic can be easily assessed at Rs. 150 per day at the relevant time. Even though Mr. B.D. Verma, counsel for the appellants, submits that the salary of an employee performing highly skilled job can get Rs. 200 per day. In the present case there is no cogent evidence to show that Naresh was having a very good business and was earning about Rs. 200 per day, under such circumstances it would be appropriate to assess his earning at Rs. 150 per day, normally he would be working at least 25 days and earning the said amount. Accordingly, we assess his monthly income at Rs. 3,750 and annual income at Rs. 45,000 after deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses dependency is assessed at Rs. 30,000 per annum and after applying multiplier of 17 compensation comes to Rs. 5,10,000. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 26,000 under various heads which seems to be reasonable. After adding the same total compensation comes to Rs. 5,36,000. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,30,000 to Rs. 5,36,000. Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid.