Judgment:
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara, in Claim Case No. 86 of 1992 dated 16.5.1997.
2. Briefly, it may be stated that the accident took place on 14.6.1992 at about 7/8 p.m. when truck No. UP 78-B 3949, owned by Jasbir Singh, driven by Pankaj Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., came in the grip of electric hotline of 3300 volts and the deceased fell dead. It is stated that accident is the result of rash and negligent act of the driver for having parked the vehicle at that place knowing fully well of the danger that hotline of 3300 volts was passing through it. Consequently, Rs. 11,86,000 is claimed as compensation.
3. Non-claimant No. 3 denies the allegation and liability to pay the compensation. According to it, the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver, the vehicle was not insured with it and the driver did not possess valid driving licence; therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. Claims Tribunal holds that the accident took place as alleged and the deceased died due to electric current. Compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,31,040 is worked out and since the deceased has been found negligent to the extent of 1/3rd, compensation of Rs. 97,360 has been paid. The award has been challenged through this appeal.
5. Two questions fall for consideration: first is whether finding of the Claims Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and second whether just compensation has been awarded to the claimants. From the evidence, it is clear that the truck driver parked the vehicle at the place where electric hotline of 3300 volts was passing. Obviously, danger to the persons nearby was there. Deceased and other labourers were working there and deceased came in the grip of the current and was electrocuted. Negligence on the part of the driver is absolutely established. There is no negligence on the part of the deceased, because his work site was there and he was obliged to work there to earn his livelihood. Therefore, finding to the contrary is set aside.
6. The deceased was earning Rs. 40 per day and he was 30 years old at that time. After making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Claims Tribunal fixed dependency at Rs. 28 per day. That being so, the monthly dependency would come to Rs. 840 and yearly Rs. 10,080. Multiplied by 18, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,81,440 + Rs. 7,000 loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 loss of consortium to the wife, Rs. 2,500 loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,97,940.
7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the award is modified. Claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,97,940. Enhanced compensation would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment by the insurance company within 2 months. The amount of compensation would be distributed as under:
(i) Somwati ... 45 per cent(ii) Anil Kumar ... 15 per cent(iii) Rajni ... 15 per cent(iv) Nisha ... 15 per cent(v) Harchatiabai ... 10 per cent
The shares of the minors be invested in F.D.Rs. with some nationalised bank respectively in their names through Somwati (mother) till they attain majority. However, interest accruing on these deposits may be released to her at her request monthly or six monthly as may be demanded, by the Manager of the bank, to be used by her for the maintenance of the children and mother of the deceased.