AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.D. Saxena, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against an Award dated 31st January 2006 in Claim Case No. 325/2004, passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) granting an amount of Rs. 54,000/- in favour of the claimant/appellant No. 1 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till full and final payment of the award is made. The facts, in short, just for decision of this appeal are that on 4th December 2004, deceased Bhure Singh was going on his motorcycle from Morena to Dholpur (Rajasthan). As he reached near village Bhanpur, a passenger-bus bearing registration No. RJ-11/P0425 owned by Rajasthan State Roadways (respondent No. 1) and driven by respondent No. 2-Devendra Singh with a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of Bhure Singh after coming from backside. Resultantly, Bhure Singh received serious injuries and died on the spot. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Saraychola (Morena) by Bhavuti Gurjar, the eye-witness of the accident upon which an offence u/s 304A of I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 130/04 and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court.
While submitting a claim-petition by the appellants for seeking compensation, it is stated that deceased Bhure, at the time of accident used to earn Rs. 8,000/- monthly by doing private medical practice and Rs. 3,000/- monthly commission from the work of Agent of PGF Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the claimants/legal heirs claimed Rs. 71, 44,000/- for compensation in all the heads from non-applicants/respondents. It appears that appellant No. 1-Smt. Barfobai is mother of the deceased while appellants No. 2 and 3 are brothers of the deceased and appellants No. 4 and 5 are nieces being daughters of appellants No. 2 and 3. The learned tribunal on going through the Succession Law applicable to the claimants, held that appellant No. 1 being mother of the deceased comes under category of class-I heir whereas rest claimants come under category of class-II. The learned tribunal thus after considering the evidence held that claimant/appellant No. 1 is only entitled to claim compensation being legal heir of the deceased and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- in all the heads with 6% interest from the date of filing of the application till date of full payment is made alongwith costs of the litigation against the respondents. Being aggrieved by these findings of the learned tribunal, the appellants have come to this court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the tribunal awarded the amount on lower side. It is submitted by the counsel that Rs. 60,000/- should be considered as yearly income of the deceased and since the deceased was bachelor after applying ordinary rule of deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses and applying multiplier of 11 on the sum of loss of dependency, the compensation ought to have been given as Rs. 4,40,000/-. In addition to above, it is submitted that compensation on other heads such as funeral, transportation of dead body from spot to the residence of deceased, loss of love and affection and loss of estate ought to have been assessed properly. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal adequate amount of compensation may be awarded.
Per contra, the respondents opposed the contention and prayer of the claimants/appellants. It is contended on their behalf that the income of the deceased was not proved as mentioned by the appellants before the learned tribunal. It is further argued that the appellants failed to prove the expenses incurred on account of funeral rights and transportation of dead body. The claimants are the mother, brothers and nieces of the deceased, who are having other sources of the income from agricultural side, therefore, the learned tribunal after considering the entire evidence brought on record awarded proper compensation. Accordingly, it is prayed that by confirming the impugned findings, the appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record and the law applicable to the case.
The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the tribunal has awarded adequate compensation for the death of Bhure Singh or it requires to be modified in the light of the submissions and the evidence on record?
On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that though driver of the bus in his statement before the court denied the accidental death of deceased by the offending bus driven by him but just after the fateful accident, the bystander on the spot immediately lodged the F.I.R. in which it was categorically mentioned by the witness that the driver of bus No. RJ-11/P0425 has caused the accident in which Bhure Singh died on the spot. After investigation, the charge-sheet was also filed against the driver/non-applicant before the criminal court. Therefore, it is proved that the driver, the respondent No. 2 was alone responsible for causing accidental death of Bhure Singh.
It further appeared from the evidence that the deceased was well educated person. However, leaving aside certificate of Indian Foundation of Alternative Medicines issued by the Councilor in favour of the deceased, no other qualification necessary for doing private medical profession is submitted on record and further except oral evidence of the claimant Barfobai (AW-1) and Bhikam Singh (AW-2), no cogent evidence so as to quantify the income of the deceased from medical profession is produced on record of the tribunal. On going through the cross-examination of the claimant Barfobai (AW-1), it seems that the deceased was having agricultural lands by which he used to earn, but that aspect of the matter was neither pleaded nor proved by the claimants.
Therefore, on scanning overall the evidence on record and looking to the educational qualification, it is gathered that the deceased was postgraduate young person. It is further apparent that he used to earn some money from the sources indicated above but for want of documentary proof, the income of the deceased was not properly assessed. In such cases, where the legal representatives of the deceased victim do not have documentary evidence of the income of the deceased, the claims tribunal should take judicial note of the increase in minimum wages due to inflation and rise in the price index and compute accordingly the income of the deceased by taking the average of the minimum wages and its double. In this respect, reference may be made to the decisions in the cases of Kanwar Devi and Others Vs. Bansal Roadways and Others, and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi and Others, . In that view of the matter and the peculiar facts, for computing the compensation, his annual income is assessed at Rs. 36,000/- @ 3,000/- p.m. it is also clear from the evidence that the deceased was unmarried and the family of the deceased was having the income from agricultural side. Admittedly, brothers and their daughters will not be dependents on the earnings of the deceased and therefore, the learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding mother of the deceased alone as legal heir and successor of the deceased Bhure Singh. As the deceased was bachelor, after applying deduction of one-third towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will come to Rs. 24,000/-. Looking to the age of dependent mother, multiplication of 6 would be applicable and thus the total compensation for loss of income shall be Rs. 1,44,000/-. Besides, this amount, the claimant/appellant No. 1 shall also be entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- for love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation of dead body from spot to the place of residence, Rs. 10,000/- for funeral rites and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. In this manner, the mother/claimant-appellant No. 1 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- (Rs. One lac eighty four thousand only) instead of the amount of Rs. 54,000/-, as awarded by the claims tribunal.
The aforesaid amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date of this order alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till final payment is made by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the claimant No. 1 Barfobai. The cost of the appeal shall also be borne by the respondents. Counsel fee, if certified, shall be Rs. 1,000/- only. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of.