Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Munnibi and Others Vs. Rameshchandra and Others

Munnibi and Others vs Rameshchandra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 24, 2001
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/505867

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Misc. Appeal No. 113/2000
Subject
Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles
Acts & sections
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168, 171 and 173

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munnibi and Others

Advocate Shri H.S. Rajpal, Adv.

Respondent

Rameshchandra and Others

Advocate Shri Anil Goyal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168, 171 and 173
Reported In
2001(3)MPHT149

Excerpt

- orderbhawani singh, c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the award of motor accident claims tribunal, indore in claim case no. 61/99, dated 8-10-1999.2. claimants are wife, father and three children of the deceased ibrahim, who died in the motor accident which took place on 31-5-1996 at 6.30 p.m.between kalarai and maachal villages (indore) when the truck by which he was travelling was hit by offending truck no. mpu 6624. allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck otherwise it would not have taken place. the defence of the insurance company is that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the vehicle and he was not a driver. this defence has been rejected by the claims tribunal. it is also found that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. consequently, compensation of rs. 1,25,200/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 percent from the date of application. this award has been challenged through this appeal.3. two submissions are raised by learned counsel for the appellant. first is with respect to the determination of dependency and the second the proper multiplier. shri rajpal contends that claims tribunal has not assessed the income of deceased properly with the result that dependency has not been properly worked out. the multiplier has not been property used, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. with respect to income of deceased, smt. munnibi has stated that the deceased was earning rs. 2,000/- per month, out of which he used to give rs. 1,000/- to the family. shri goyal appearing for the insurance company contends that the deceased was working in a sawmill, therefore, his income at the rate of rs. 40/- per day has been correctly assessed by the tribunal. in support of smt. munnibi, driver of the truck has stated that the deceased used to earn rs. 2,000/- per month.4. we think, with this kind of evidence it would be.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 61/99, dated 8-10-1999.

2. Claimants are wife, father and three children of the deceased Ibrahim, who died in the motor accident which took place on 31-5-1996 at 6.30 p.m.between Kalarai and Maachal villages (Indore) when the truck by which he was travelling was hit by offending truck No. MPU 6624. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck otherwise it would not have taken place. The defence of the Insurance Company is that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the vehicle and he was not a driver. This defence has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. It is also found that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 1,25,200/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 percent from the date of application. This award has been challenged through this appeal.

3. Two submissions are raised by learned counsel for the appellant. First is with respect to the determination of dependency and the second the proper multiplier. Shri Rajpal contends that Claims Tribunal has not assessed the income of deceased properly with the result that dependency has not been properly worked out. The multiplier has not been property used, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. With respect to income of deceased, Smt. Munnibi has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, out of which he used to give Rs. 1,000/- to the family. Shri Goyal appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the deceased was working in a sawmill, therefore, his income at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal. In support of Smt. Munnibi, driver of the truck has stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month.

4. We think, with this kind of evidence it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, after deducting one third towards personal expenditure, the dependency would come to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. So far as age of the deceased is concerned, there being variation in statements on this point, therefore, it would be desirable to fix it at 33 and multiplier of 17 would be applicable in this case. Compensation payable in this case works out to Rs. 1,70,000/-. This apart, Smt. Munnibi would be entitled to consortium of Rs. 10,000/-, all the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 5,000/-for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, total payable compensation comes to Rs. 1,87,000/-, which be paid within 2 months alongwith interest at the rate of nine percent on the enhanced compensation from the date of application till payment. Claimants shall be paid the compensation in the following terms :--

(1) Munnibi (wife), 50 percent;

(2) Imran (son), 14 percent;

(3) Sabana (daughter), 13 percent;

(4) Afsana (daughter), 13 percent;

(5) Kabrudin (father), 10 percent.

5. The compensation falling to the share of minors shall be invested in fixed deposits in the name of their natural guardian Munnibi till they attain majority. The appeal is disposed of in terms aforesaid.

6. Cost on parties.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial