^s.:.. l'f-^—<:t /i s^~^. Wte..'?' '%.' %•5> , <»,^ y's..<!^.^i~ '^SKS^^sSV HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. h/lisc. Appeal (0 No. 277 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1. Chhotu Singh, S/o Lamu Singh aged about 40 years. 2. Dujiya Bai, S/o Chhotu Singh aged about 38 years, 3. Surtiya Bai, D/o Chhotu Singh aged about 16years, 4. Shanti Bai, d/o Chhotu Singh aged about 14years 5 Sudesh Singh, S/o Chhotu Singh, aged about 13 years Al] caste-Gond, resident of Karondi, Tahsil Dindori, district Dindori M.P. Appellant No.3 to 5 minors, through natural guardian father Chhotu Singh, at present resident of Sevra, P.S. Pendra, district Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Sahdev, s/o Devlal, aged about 24 years, caste Panika, resident of Gorakhpur, postGorakhpur, Tahsil Dindori, district Dindori M.P. 2. Abdul Shabbir Kureshi, s/o. Abdul Hamid, resident of Gorakhpur, Post GoraKhpur, Tahsil and district Dindori M.P. 3. Narbad Chawle, s/o A.R. Chawle, aged about 45 years, resident of Karenjiya, post Karejiya, Tahsil and district Dindori C.G. ^-,^ 4 ^ ^ ^ 4. National Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur C.G. NIISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER >th (28InMarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by, Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.07.2006, passed in Claim Case No.14/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.63,33,OOO/- claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate parents, sisters and brother of deceased Suresh Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 04.03.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased died on 04.03.2005 on account of saT\:\- \ , 3 ^2^ the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.03.2005; the deceased himself and the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep equally contributed to the accident; as the offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the risk of the passengers in the Jeep were covered to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,0007- to the claimants and the liability for the balance amount was that of the driver and owner of the Jeep- 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the< deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. As the deceased himself was held liable for the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants were held entitled to receive Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation on account of his death. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance; Rs.11,9527- towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral'expenses, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.2,63,952/-, which was rounded off to Rs.2,64,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the liability of the insurer of the Jeep ttea-ifc, was to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,64,000/- was to be paid by the driver and ownerof the* offending vehicle Jeep. The Tribunal furfher directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- @ 10% per annum from the date pf filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the decea.sed himself also equally contributed to the accident; and in. awarding low compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- only. 6) Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4, the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held the liability of the insurance company to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, as the risk of the passengers was covered to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Suresh Kumar was also responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, we gather from para 20 of the award that the above finding is based on the evidence of claimants' witness AW/2 Anand Ram, which was fo the effect that the deceased was sitting in the Jeep negligently by the side ofthe conductor and fell from the Jeep due to his own negligence. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel foF the parties and the evidence available on record, we „'\ '->"'. ,1 ^-CT^'. :.^?" (2-) do not find any infirmity inthe above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9) True the claimants pleaded that deceased Suresh Kumar used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as tailor and agriculturist, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 10) The Tribunal has beenquite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased as he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. 11) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side considering that the claimants are parents, brother and sisters of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex- Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the daimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 1 0. ii s'-a, ?.'t ,».' ,?.;' .<••• /^ .^ padma 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) So far as the apportionment of the liability by the Tribunal between the insurer of the Jeep and the driver and owner of the Jeep is concerned, it is apparent from the insurance policy of the Jeep that the risk of the passengers in the Jeep was covered to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each only by charging premium of Rs.50/- only. As such, the Tribunal has rightly held the liability of the insurer of the Jeep to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only and the' liability for the balance amount of the compensation would be that of the owner and driver of the Jeep. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chiefjustice Sd/- R-^. Chg Judge ar ^