Gomati and ors. Vs. Sarman and ors.

Gomati and ors. vs Sarman and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 10, 1994

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508229

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508229
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.K. Dubey and ;A.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Decided On: May 10, 1994
Case Number: M.A. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1992
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA (KHAND NYAYPEETH KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM (14 OF 2006)Section 2 & M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, Section 12: [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Appeal to Division Bench against judgment of Single Judge - Application for restoration/revival of Letters Patent Appeal under Cla...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gomati and ors.

Advocate S.K. Jain, Adv.

Respondent

Sarman and ors.

Advocate Madhukar Kulshreshtha and ;B.N. Malhotra, Advs.

Legal References

Cases Referred: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnalata Das
Reported In: 1994ACJ1291

Excerpt

..... adhiniyam providing for appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by single judge under section 96 of c.p.c., to a division bench, by virtue of the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam, appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent from a judgment and decree passed by single judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 96 of c.p.c., are not revived. - learned counsel further submitted that the law is well settled that when a multiplier is applied, then no lump sum deduction can be made as it takes care of all the heads including uncertainties of life and the interest income if the amount is deposited in the fixed deposit. 6. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the award is not inadequately low so as to call for any interference of this court as the tribunal, after finding that no legal evidence had been produced in respect of agricultural income by the deceased, determined the monthly income of the two deceased at rs. jain states that the claimants would be satisfied if the expenses of the deceased's own expenses are reduced to '/3rd and the multiplier of 16 is applied and instead of pecuniary damages by keeping the figure of rs......persons being milk vendors, they were also doing agricultural work and, therefore, their monthly earning was not less than rs. 1,000/-. in any case, it cannot be less than rs. 750/-. it was also submitted that deduction of 50 per cent amount on the deceased's expenses on himself was also illegal when the deceased had to maintain a widow and a child along with the old parents. therefore, the ratio for deduction on own expenses ought not have been more than '/3rd of the total monthly earning of the deceased. learned counsel further submitted that the law is well settled that when a multiplier is applied, then no lump sum deduction can be made as it takes care of all the heads including uncertainties of life and the interest income if the amount is deposited in the fixed deposit.6. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the award is not inadequately low so as to call for any interference of this court as the tribunal, after finding that no legal evidence had been produced in respect of agricultural income by the deceased, determined the monthly income of the two deceased at rs. 525/- and rs. 500/- respectively by the sale of milk. in the alternative, it was submitted that this court takes the view that the monthly earning determined by the tribunal is not correct, the amount of expenses of the deceased be reduced to '/3rd and in the head of consortium, a conventional figure of rs. 10,000/-be awarded and the multiplier of 16 be applied as held by this court in the case of state of madhya pradesh through collector, jhabua v. ashadevi 1988 acj 846 (mp) and by the supreme court in the case of national insurance co. ltd. v. swarnalata das 1993 acj 748 (sc).7. to this alternative submission of mr. malhotra, mr. jain states that the claimants would be satisfied if the expenses of the deceased's own expenses are reduced to '/3rd and the multiplier of 16 is applied and instead of pecuniary damages by keeping the figure of rs. 10,000/-, the amount.....

Full Judgment

S.K. Dubey and A.S. Tripathi, JJ.

1. Heard counsel.

2. Deceased Vijay Singh (M.A. No. 55 of 1992), aged 28 years and deceased Banwari Lal (M.A. No. 56 of 1992), aged 24 years, died in a motor accident on 27.9.1988 at about 7.00 p.m. while they were going on their bicycles from Morena city to their villages on Sabalgarh road. Truck No. CPG 68, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 during the course of employment of respondent No. 2, dashed against their bicycles. The said truck was insured by respondent No. 3 with an unlimited liability.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 46 of 1989, for the death of Vijay Singh, taking the multiplicand of Rs. 350/-per month and yearly of Rs. 4,200/-, multiplied by 15 = Rs. 63,000/- plus Rs. 10,0007- towards special damages and Rs. 600/-, the damage to the bicycle, in all Rs. 73,600/-, determined as compensation and after deducting 15 per cent towards lump sum payment, awarded the compensation.

4. In Claim Case No. 47 of 1989, for the death of Banwari Lal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 500, thus yearly income being Rs. 6,000/- and deducting half of the amount from it by way of expenses incurred by the deceased on his ownself, fixed the annual figure of dependency at Rs. 3,000/-. Taking this multiplicand and applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- was awarded. In the head of pecuniary damages, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded and towards damage to the bicycle, Rs. 600/-were granted. Out of the total compensation so determined, the Tribunal deducted 15 per cent towards lump sum payment.

5. Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that besides the two deceased persons being milk vendors, they were also doing agricultural work and, therefore, their monthly earning was not less than Rs. 1,000/-. In any case, it cannot be less than Rs. 750/-. It was also submitted that deduction of 50 per cent amount on the deceased's expenses on himself was also illegal when the deceased had to maintain a widow and a child along with the old parents. Therefore, the ratio for deduction on own expenses ought not have been more than '/3rd of the total monthly earning of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the law is well settled that when a multiplier is applied, then no lump sum deduction can be made as it takes care of all the heads including uncertainties of life and the interest income if the amount is deposited in the fixed deposit.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the award is not inadequately low so as to call for any interference of this court as the Tribunal, after finding that no legal evidence had been produced in respect of agricultural income by the deceased, determined the monthly income of the two deceased at Rs. 525/- and Rs. 500/- respectively by the sale of milk. In the alternative, it was submitted that this court takes the view that the monthly earning determined by the Tribunal is not correct, the amount of expenses of the deceased be reduced to '/3rd and in the head of consortium, a conventional figure of Rs. 10,000/-be awarded and the multiplier of 16 be applied as held by this court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Jhabua v. Ashadevi 1988 ACJ 846 (MP) and by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnalata Das 1993 ACJ 748 (SC).

7. To this alternative submission of Mr. Malhotra, Mr. Jain states that the claimants would be satisfied if the expenses of the deceased's own expenses are reduced to '/3rd and the multiplier of 16 is applied and instead of pecuniary damages by keeping the figure of Rs. 10,000/-, the amount be awarded in the head of consortium.

8. In view of the submission of Mr. Jain, we modify the award of the Tribunal in both cases.

9. In Claim Case No. 46 of 1989, taking the monthly dependency of Rs. 350/-, yearly Rs. 4,200/-; multiplied by 16, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 67,200/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of consortium to the widow be added and Rs. 600/- towards the damages to the bicycle. Thus, in all, compensation comes to Rs. 77,800/-, to this, we add Rs. 200/- to ,round up the figure to Rs. 78,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants as compensation.

10. In Claim Case No. 47 of 1989, after deducting the '/3rd of the expenses of the deceased on himself, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 330/-, but we make it Rs. 350 to round up the figure. Thus, the yearly multiplicand comes to Rs. 4,200/- to which we apply the multiplier of 16, then total amount comes to Rs. 67,200/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be added by way of consortium to the widow and Rs. 600/-towards the damages to the bicycle. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 77,800/- in all, to this, we add Rs. 200/- to round up the figure to Rs. 78,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants as compensation.

11. Besides, the claimants in both the cases shall be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation so arrived at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment and also the costs of this appeal which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/- in each case. The insurance company shall deposit the total amount of compensation with interest and the costs so awarded, of course, after the adjustment of the amount already deposited by the insurance company towards compensation and proportionate interest. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months, failing which the insurance company shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the date of deposit.

12. On deposit of the amount by the insurance company, as directed above, in both matters, the Tribunal disburse the amount to the claimants keeping in mind the interest of the minors.

13. The appeals are disposed of in the light of the directions contained herein-above.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1994 Same Parties Gomati and ors. vs Sarman and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.K. Dubey and ;A.S. Tripathi, JJ.

Motor Vehicles