1 IN THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6ISSUE Nos.2 & 3.16. Both these issues are taken up together for considerationfor the sake of convenience and brevity. The claimant, in his Claimapplication, stated the age of his deceased wife to be '32' years at the time ofdeath. From the copy of the Post Mortem Report submitted by the claimant,it also appears that the deceased was aged about '32' years at the time of herdeath. Accordingly, for the purpose of assessment of the compensation, theappropriate multiplier in this case is found to be '17' (Seventeen) as perSecond schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. As per CW.1, his deceasedwife engaged herself in the business of selling clothes and used to earnRs.5,000/- only per month, and their family was depending upon herincome. Though, CW.2 and CW.3 supported the version of the claimant(PW.1), but no any document was found submitted in support to that effectby the claimant.17. Be that as it may, in absence of any concrete evidence,keeping in view the avocation pursued by the deceased it would not beunreasonable to hold that her monthly income was approximatelyRs.2,000/- only at the time of her death. Accordingly, the annual income ofthe deceased is found to be Rs.24,000/- only, and if we deduct 1/3 rd of thesaid annual income to be personal expense of the deceased, the annualdependency would come around Rs.16,000/- only. Now, by multiplying theannual dependency, Rs.16,000/- only by the multiplier, '17', the total loss ofincome is found to be Rs.2,72,000/- only, to which the claimant is foundentitled to get as compensation. The claimant is also entitled to get anamount of Rs.2,000/- only, as funeral expense, and another sum ofRs.5,000/- only, on the head of 'loss of consortium' being the spouse of thedeceased.18. Thus, in total, the claimant is found entitled to an amountof Rs.2,79,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand) only, ascompensation for the death of his deceased wife due to the road trafficaccident.19. The OP No.1, OP No.2 and OP No.4 being the driver,owner and insurer respectively of the offending truck bearing registration
7No.AS.01.R/ 0792 are jointly as well as severally liable to make payment ofthe amount of compensation found due to the claimant.20. As there was no contributory negligence on the part ofthe driver of the Maruti Van bearing registration No.AS.07.B/ 9967, OPNos.3 and 5 can not be made liable to share the liability of compensationfound due to the claimant.21. Accordingly, both these issues are answered.O R D E R22. In view of my decision arrived at on the issues, the OPNo.4, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., admittedly being the insurer of thetruck bearing registration No.AS.01.R/ 0792, is directed to make paymentof Rs.2,79,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand) only, ascompensation to the claimant within a period of two months from the dateof this award, failing which interest @ 6% p.a will accrue to the awardedamount.23. This MACT case stands disposed of, accordingly.24. Both the parties will bear their respective costs.25. Let a copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the OP No.4for compliance.Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this15 th day of June, 2012.Dictated & corrected by me -(P.K.Khanikar)Member, M.A.C.T.Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.(P.K.Khanikar)Member, M.A.C.T.Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.Transcribed & typed by-S.Kshattry, Stenographer.
Page 1 and 2: 1IN THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCI
Page 3 and 4: 3Van) was in fact kept insured with

1 IN THE COURT OF MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?