Smt.Sandhaya Mihilal Rai vs State of M.P. and Ors

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur in Claim Case No. 2/2003 for enhancement of the award amount.

The appellants case is that on 28.05.2002, deceased Satish Singh was traveling as a pillion rider on Hero Honda motor-cycle bearing registration No. MP 12 H 5187 driven by his brother Santosh Singh. The motor-cycle was driven at a moderate speed. On Burhanpur-Khandwa Road near Nimbola, a bus bearing registration No. MP 09 KA 1877 driven rashly and negligently by

respondent no. / driver hit the motor-cycle of the deceased. Satish Singh was seriously injured and died on the spot. He was aged 36 years at that time as was working as Health Inspector at Hapa Railway Station, Western Railway, Gujarat earning Rs. 15,000/- as salary. The appellants are parents and dependants of the deceased, therefore the appellants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs before the Tribunal.

Respondents no. 1 and 2, the driver and owner raised objection that the earlier another claim petition has been filed by Manisha / wife of the deceased before the 4th MACT, District Dhar. The applicants are not dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In fact the deceased''s brother Santosh Singh negligently drove the motor-cycle. Therefore, the respondent no. 1 is not responsible for the accident. He had valid and effective driving licence. Vehicle was insured by respondent no. 3 company. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company respondent no. 3 also denied the claim of the applicant and contended that at the time of the accident, the driver of the aforesaid bus respondent no. 1 and driver of the aforesaid motor-cycle Santosh did not have valid and effective licence. On the ground of breach of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to exonerate from the liablity to pay compensation. Further, it is contended that two separate claims by wife and parents for compensation is not maintainable. Learned Tribunal found that Manisha / wife of the deceased remarried. She was working as booking clerk at Hapa Railway Station, Gujarat. She received compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.75 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs has been deposited in her name. Learned Trial Court found that the deceased Satish died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MP 09 KA 1877 by respondent no. 1. His parents were his dependents therefore they are entitled to receive the claim amount along with another claimant Manisha. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1.50 lakhs in favour of the appellant no. 1. The appellants challenged the above order on the grounds that Manisha / respondent no. 5 has remarried after the death of Satish. She also got compassionate appointment in his place. She got all his retiral dues. Therefore, she is not entitled for any amount from the compensation after being paid Rs. 1 lakh each for minor children. The appellants are entitled for the amount of Rs. 3.75 lakhs as first class legal heirs. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the condition of the appellants and awarded merged sum to the partes. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement in the amount awarded in their favour upto Rs. 5 lakhs.

Looking to the age of the appellants, the quantum of award amount seems to be just and proper because appellant no. 1 is a retired government teacher and she is receiving retiral benefit / pension. Learned Tribunal awarded sum part of the award amount in favour of respondent no. 5 Manisha was she is the wife and Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of the minor children of the deceased as security of their future. This Court is not in agreement with the contentions raised in the appeal that the appellants are entitled to get Rs. 3.75 lakhs. The findings of the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. This appeal is pending since the year 2005. None is present to prosecute the appeal since admission, therefore the appeal is decided on merits on the basis of material available on record.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.

No order as to cost.