Skip to content


Neetabai and ors. Vs. Balkishan and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.A. No. 486 of 2002
Judge
Reported in2004ACJ1107
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 338 and 304A
AppellantNeetabai and ors.
RespondentBalkishan and ors.
Advocates:Sunil Mishra, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....of the finance act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by central board of excise and customs. - they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal, therefore, they claim enhancement of the compensation through this appeal. 6. the question for determination in this case is what just compensation is awardable in this case, since the evidence clearly demonstrates that finding on issue no......date of application till payment. the amount shall be paid as under:(1) neetabai (wife) 40 per cent(2) meenabai (daughter) 15 per cent(3) nitesh kumar (son) 15 per cent(4) dileshwaribai(daughter) 15 per cent(5) khemlatabai (daughter) 15 per centthe claimant nos. 2 to 5 are minors, therefore, their shares be invested in fdr in their names through their mother, neetabai with the nationalised bank till they attain majority.
Judgment:

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balaghat, in the Claim Case No. 2 of 2001, dated 21.12.2001.

2. Briefly stated, accident took place on 5.6.2000 at 3 p.m. in front of Ramdeo Tiles of Gondia Road, Navegaon, Balaghat, when a Commander jeep No. MP 22-H 8416 was going to Hatta with occupants therein and the truck No. MP 23-DA 2922 driven by Balkishan rashly and negligently hit the jeep. In this accident Pushpraj Munjare, Tundilal, Omkar Meshram and Roshanlal Pichhore died and Ashok Kumar Hanvate suffered injuries. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., owned by Devendra Singh A. Bhatiya and driven by Balkishan.

3. The owner of jeep and the insurance company are also parties in this case. The respondents have denied the claim. They state, inter alia, that the claim is exaggerated. The jeep was being driven by Ashok, who did not possess valid driving licence. He was driving it rashly and negligently. It went out of control and struck against the truck. Owner and driver of the jeep are responsible for this accident. The driver of the jeep did not possess valid driving licence, even otherwise the liability can be apportioned between the two parties involved in the accident. The owner of jeep also alleges that the vehicle was with the Forest Department on lease. It was not being driven by its driver, since Ashok Kumar Hanvate was driving it. Ashok Hanvate admits that jeep was with the Forest Department. He was going from Balaghat to Hatta along with the departmental officials. The truck came from opposite side, driven rashly and negligently and hit the jeep. Against the truck driver, a case under Sections 279, 338 and 304A, Indian Penal Code was registered and challan was filed in the court. The jeep was being driven by Pushpraj Munjare. Therefore, he may be exonerated from the liability. Jeep owner also denied the allegations that the accident was caused by jeep. He says that the jeep was with the Forest Department. It was being driven at a slow speed and carefully, therefore, he may be absolved from the liability to pay compensation.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues, sought evidence and allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 1,93,960/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent annum.

5. The claimants are wife and children of deceased Roshanlal Pichhore. They are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, they claim enhancement of the compensation through this appeal.

6. The question for determination in this case is what just compensation is awardable in this case, since the evidence clearly demonstrates that finding on issue No. 1 recorded by the Claims Tribunal is sustainable on the basis of evidence recorded in this case. The deceased was 35 years old at the time of accident. He was Manager in the Cooperative Society earning Rs. 2,233/- including bonus of Rs. 83/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 17,868/-. Mter applying multiplier of 17, the compensation comes to Rs. 3,03,756/- plus Rs. 7,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, taking total compensation to Rs. 3,20,256/- (rupees three lakh twenty thousand two hundred and fifty-six only).

7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, award is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,20,256/- payable by the insurance company within two months. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. The amount shall be paid as under:

(1) Neetabai (wife) 40 per cent

(2) Meenabai (daughter) 15 per cent

(3) Nitesh Kumar (son) 15 per cent

(4) Dileshwaribai

(daughter) 15 per cent

(5) Khemlatabai (daughter) 15 per cent

The claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are minors, therefore, their shares be invested in FDR in their names through their mother, Neetabai with the nationalised bank till they attain majority.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //