Case: Mohan Singh Vs. Kashi Bai

Appellant before us is the driver and owner of the jeep bearing registration No. MP-04J 1824 which met with an accident on 21.11.1999 having collided with a truck. The deceased Balma @ Balram Gond, Ramgopal and Shankarlal admittedly were travelling in the saidFirst Information Report was lodged. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed applications for grant of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") which was marked as Claim Case Nos. 76, 78 and 79 of 2002.The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, framed the followingWhether on 21.11.99 in the night at about 8 a.m. near village Semri, non applicant No. 1 driving Jeep No. MP04 1824 and truck No. MP04K2028 driven negligently and rashly the collision between the two vehicle occurred and in the result Shankarlal died.2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers? If so, effect.3. At 8 p.m. Jeep No. MP04J1824 was dashed by truck No. MP04 K 2028 and the accident was caused, if so, effect..4. Whether applicants are entitled for compensation.5. Relief & Cost.The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the depositions of the witnesses held that neither the truck No. MP04K 2028 was involved in the accident, nor was it caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The learned Tribunal passed awards in all the three cases asCase No. 76 of 2002 Rs. 1,32,000/-Claim Case No. 78 of 2002 Rs. 1,92,000/-Claim Case No. 79 of 2002 Rs.Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the

Reasoning:
view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family. Therefore, we work out that Rs 30,000 was earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency was 2/3rd i.e. Rs 20,000. The multiplier of `11 applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as per Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it should be `12. Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency will be Rs 20,000 x 12 = Rs 2,40,000 and Rs 10,000 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to Rs 2,50,000 and incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid