Mukesh and Others Vs Kishor Singh Tomar and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) 22 Aug 1989 M.A. No. 29 of 1983 (1989) 08 MP CK 0011
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

M.A. No. 29 of 1983

Hon'ble Bench

T.N. Singh, J; S.K. Dubey, J

Advocates

B.D. Verma, for the Appellant; N.D. Singhal, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

T.N. Singh, J.@mdashThe claimants are appellants, who have assailed the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, claiming enhancement.

2. The deceased Bhawani was in the employment of the Railways and he met his death on 30.6.1981 at about 10.00 p.m. in a motor accident. The Matador vehicle involved in the accident, registered No. MPW 8415, was insured admittedly with respondent No. 3 on the relevant date but the insurer-respondent has not produced and proved the insurance policy of the vehicle.

3. Admittedly, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 482/- per month and he was about 40 years of age on the date of death. The Tribunal passed an award in the sum of Rs. 21,580/- and also awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and in making that award took the view that the dependency of the claimants could be laid at the most in the sum of Rs. 150/- per month. He reached the figure of Rs. 23,400/- but made deductions of 30 per cent. However, for pain and suffering and also loss of company further sums were awarded.

4. Respondent''s counsel, Mr. Singhal''s contention is that the award on two counts as respects loss of company and compensation for pain and suffering is illegal. To that, however, there could be no reasonable objection but the moot question is whether dependency has been rightly assessed and settled in this case. The deceased had a family with 4 dependants and it is difficult to conceive of a case in the present conditions of high cost of living for such a family to be maintained with the meagre amount of Rs. 150/-. We are also not at all happy with the finding and conclusion of the Tribunal that the multiplier can be only 13 and deduction of 30 per cent could legally be made on that footing.

5. We are of the view that loss of dependency in any view of the facts and circumstances cannot be assessed at a figure of less than Rs. 300/- per month and a multiplier of 15 would do justice to the claimants. Therefore, though we reject the finding and conclusion and award of the Tribunal with respect to compensation for loss of company and pain and suffering of the claimants, we hold the claimants to be entitled for compensation to be paid to them in the lump sum of Rs. 54,000/-. That in our view would be just compensation for the death of Bhawani, whose widow and children as also mother are the claimants.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified. The claimants are held entitled to be paid compensation in the sum of Rs. 54,000/- by respondent No. 3, insurer. That amount shall be deposited along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment with the Tribunal. At the time of disbursement of the sum deposited, the Tribunal shall take care to safeguard the interest of the minors and do the needful accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this matter in this court.

From The Blog
Business Structure Playbook for Indian Residents
Nov
15
2025

Court News

Business Structure Playbook for Indian Residents
Read More
Supreme Court: Tenants Must Pay Rent Despite Pending Appeal, No Relief Without Stay Order
Nov
15
2025

Court News

Supreme Court: Tenants Must Pay Rent Despite Pending Appeal, No Relief Without Stay Order
Read More