Ruby Yadav and ors. Vs. Rajendra and ors.

Ruby Yadav and ors. vs Rajendra and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 28, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/509698

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/509698
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: D.P.S. Chauhan and ;Dipak Misra, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 28, 1999
Case Number: M.A. No. 1109 of 1997
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. Sections 7, 2(1)(1), 3 & 11 (6): [A.K. Patnaik, C.J.,.S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Arbitration of disputes arising out of works contract between State or its undertaking and Contractor Arbitration agreement Held, If a Works contract, as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the M.P...

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ruby Yadav and ors.

Advocate Ashok Lalwani, Adv.

Respondent

Rajendra and ors.

Advocate Sunil Jain, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2000ACJ461; 1999(1)MPLJ29

Excerpt

.....act, 1996. sections 7, 2(1)(1), 3 & 11 (6): [a.k. patnaik, c.j.,.s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] arbitration of disputes arising out of works contract between state or its undertaking and contractor arbitration agreement held, if a works contract, as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the m.p. madhyastham adhikaran adhiniyam, 1983 contains an arbitration clause, either party to the works contract will have to refer the dispute to the arbitration tribunal as constituted under section 3 of the adhiniyam and cannot refer it to any other arbitrator for arbitration. the 1983 adhiniyam is, therefore, a law for the time being in force relating to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the state government or its undertaking and the contractor and is save under section 2(5) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 from the provisions of part-i of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 which are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1983 adhiniyam. the state legislature is competent to make a law in respect of arbitration in entry 13 of the concurrent list, even though the arbitration act, 1940 made by the central legislature was already in the same field because the 1983 adhiniyam had been reserved for consideration and had received the assent of the president, as provided in clause (2) of article 254 of the constitution, parliament was competent to make the 1996 act in the same field, but while making the 1996 act, has expressly saved the provisions of the 1983 adhiniyam in sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 2 of the 1996 act, both in respect of statutory arbitrations and arbitrations pursuant to arbitration agreements in respect of disputes arising out of works contracts between the state government or a state government undertaking and the contractor from the provisions of part-i of the 1996 act which are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1983 adhiniyam. hence, the provisions of the 1983 adhiniyam are not repugnant to the provisions..........the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') the claimants-appellants have called in question the legal validity of the award dated 16.5.1997 passed by the first motor accidents claims tribunal, murwara, distt. katni.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 18.3.1994 deceased dayashankar yadav was travelling on scooter bearing registration no. ciq 3796 on national highway no. 7 and proceeding towards maihar when he reached at the check post of forest department near village kuthla, the offending truck bearing registration no. up-32a-0611, being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent no. 1, dashed against the scooter, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his head, and eventually succumbed to the same. the widow of the deceased along with parents filed aforesaid claim petition contending, inter alia, that the deceased was earning rs. 3,000 per month as he was working as a branch manager in m/s. satna express transport corporation, was aged about 28 years, contributing substantially to the family and hence they were entitled to a compensation of rs. 15,74,000.3. the parties adduced evidence before the claims tribunal. on considering the material brought on record, the tribunal came to hold that the monthly income of the deceased was rs. 1,500 and his contribution to the family was rs. 1,000. the tribunal accepted the age of the deceased to be 28 years and applied multiplier of 12. the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. thus the tribunal awarded a total sum of rs. 1,51,000.4. assailing the aforesaid award, it is contended by mr. ashok lalwani, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants that the tribunal has erred in determining the actual monthly income of the deceased as he was working as a manager in a transport company and the tribunal should have accepted the stand of the appellants that the monthly income of the.....

Full Judgment

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the claimants-appellants have called in question the legal validity of the award dated 16.5.1997 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara, Distt. Katni.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 18.3.1994 deceased Dayashankar Yadav was travelling on scooter bearing registration No. CIQ 3796 on National Highway No. 7 and proceeding towards Maihar when he reached at the Check Post of Forest Department near village Kuthla, the offending truck bearing registration No. UP-32A-0611, being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No. 1, dashed against the scooter, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his head, and eventually succumbed to the same. The widow of the deceased along with parents filed aforesaid claim petition contending, inter alia, that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month as he was working as a Branch Manager in M/s. Satna Express Transport Corporation, was aged about 28 years, contributing substantially to the family and hence they were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,74,000.

3. The parties adduced evidence before the Claims Tribunal. On considering the material brought on record, the Tribunal came to hold that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500 and his contribution to the family was Rs. 1,000. The Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased to be 28 years and applied multiplier of 12. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,51,000.

4. Assailing the aforesaid award, it is contended by Mr. Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants that the Tribunal has erred in determining the actual monthly income of the deceased as he was working as a Manager in a transport company and the Tribunal should have accepted the stand of the appellants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000. The learned counsel has also criticised the application of multiplier of 12 by the Tribunal. Mr. Ashok Lalwani has also contended that the sum granted towards consortium is not adequate.

5. Mr. Sunil Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income inasmuch as no material was brought on record to determine income of the deceased. However, learned counsel for the insurer has fairly accepted that the multiplier which has been applied by the Tribunal is low.

6. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we have carefully gone through the award passed by the Tribunal and perused the evidence on record. On a close scrutiny of the materials on record, we find that the analysis made by the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion in regard to monthly income of the deceased is impeccable and no fault can be found with the same. Admittedly no documentary evidence was produced before the learned Tribunal in support of the income of the deceased. Hence, we are of the considered view that the determination of the income and fixation of monthly contribution by the Tribunal stand close scrutiny. As regards multiplier, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. Applying the Schedule prescribed under Section 163A of the Act, we are of the considered view that multiplier of 18 would be apposite. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 2,16,000. As wife has come up in appeal, award of Rs. 10,000 is granted towards consortium. The claimants also would be entitled to Rs. 5,000 towards loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 2,33,000. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within three months from today with 12 per cent interest from the date of application. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it would carry interest at 15 per cent per annum.

7. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties Ruby Yadav and ors. vs Rajendra and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge D.P.S. Chauhan and ;Dipak Misra, JJ.

Motor Vehicles