i I x "‘% k1 iiv \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Ra'eev Gu ta C.J. & N. Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J. Misc. AQQeal No. 125 of 2002 Smt. Sadhani Bai & others Basanta Pradhin & others JUDGMENT For consideration #LE‘ A Sd/- SunilKumar Slinha J Judge ,7 Nd? r '\ HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA Sd/. i éhief Justiéé" \ 4 5 /o1/2o10 Post for Judgment :/&)1/2010 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Jv. Misc. Appeal No.125 of 2002 APPELLANTS 1. Smt. Sadhani Bai Aged about 40 Claimants years, Wd/o Rangdev Singh @ Lallu, Occupation: House Wife 2. Dasharu, Aged about 20 years, S/o. Late Rangdev Singh @ Lallu 3. Ku. Lakshmi Bai, Aged about 7 years, ‘D/o. Late Rangdev Singh @ Lallu Appellant No. 3 through legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sadhanibai, Ali are R/o Village Gogaon, P‘S. Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsii and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Vers‘us RESPONDENTS 1. Basanta Pradhin, R/o Raipur—Orissa Non-Applicants Road-lines, Amanaka, Raipur,‘ Tah. & Distt. Raipur 2. Samakanta Samant Rai, R/o Raipur— Orissa Roadlines, Amanaka, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Bhuneshwar (Orissa) Through: Divisional Manager, Division Office, Kachhari Chauk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Rawatsingh S/o Gahan Singh R/o 60, Virdi Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 5. The National Office insurance Co. Ltd., : Divisional Manager, Through Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) xr, x, MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. \ Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. \\ Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. \.___________________________________________________________________________________________ \ \ 2 M.A. N0. 125 of2002 JUDGMENT ()g .o1.2o10) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Suriil Kumar Sinha, J. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of (1)‘ amdunt of compensation award in Claim Case No. 5/98 by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 1‘8.12.2001. V The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Rangdev @ Lallu was the driver of truck No. MP.- 23-D—1435. He died in the motor accident on 5.8.94. The claimants being the wife and children of the deceased filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/—. They pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. O.R.—02-B/3597 by its driver. The accident took place when the aforesaid truck dashed the truck of the deceased in head—on collision at about 11.00 a.m. on 5.8.94 near Re/akhoda pool on Raipur-Sambalpur highway. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/— per month and he was aged about 40 years. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of evidence led on behalf of the claimants held that it was a case of contributory negligence to. the extent of 50% each on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. it further held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/— per year. By deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs 16 000/— per year The Tribunal recorded a fnding that the deceased was aged about 60 years By applying multiplier of 9 to the annual dependency of Rs 16 000/ the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/—. By adding a further sum of Rs.6,000/- (2) \ \ 3 M.A. No. l 25 nFmm under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,50,000/-. Since it was a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% by each driver, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to receive Rs.75,000/- as compensation on account of death of deceased Rangdev @ Laiiu in the motor accident The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization It further held that respondents 1 to 3 were iomtly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants (3); ‘Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that . it was a case of contributory negligence He also argued that a low compensation has been awarded which may suitably be enhanced (4) On the other hand, learned counselappearing on behalf of respondents 3 & 5 opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case (6) The claimants have examined Sadhani Bai (AW—1) and Munna Baghel (AW-2) in support of their Claim Petition. (7) Sadhani Bai (AW-1) is wife of the deceased. She was not an eye witness. Munna Baghel (AW—2) has been examined as an eye witness. He claimed to be the helper in the truck of the deceased. He deposed that “He was sitting in the cabin of the truck. At about 11.00 a.m., their if truck met with an accident when truck No. O.R.—02-B/3597 coming from the opposite direction, dashed their truck. The other truck was in speed of 4 M.A. No. 125 of2002 80 Km per hour. Lallu died in the said accident. He also received injuries in the said accident". in the cross examination, he deposed that their truck was in stationary condition. The aforesaid version”given by this witness goes against the pleadings of the claimants taken in their Claim Petition. The claimants have categorically pleaded vide Para-3 (A) of the Claim Petition that the truck of the deceased was in running conditions, however, the deceased was driving his truck slowly and carefully. ln the F.l.R. (Ex.-P/1) also it has’been mentioned that both the vehicles were in u - running condition and a head-on collision took place between them. The certified copy of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/1) has been brought on record. Therefore, the above version of this witness cannot be accepted. The accident took place at about 11.00 a.m. Both the vehicles were in running condition. lt was a head-on collision. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased who was driving the truck No. M.P.-23-D—1435 has also contributed to the accident. ln the above state of evidence and pleadings, we do not find any fault in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that it was a case of contributory negligence in which the deased has also contributed to the extent of 50%. ce (8) So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though it was pleaded that the deceased Was earning Rs.3,000/— per'month as a driver in the truck but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. This has only come in the oral evidence of wife of the deceased. The owner/employer has not been examined. No other evidence has been brought on record to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal on its own assessment held that the deceased must be earning Rs.2,000/— per month which was the usual payment made to thevpaid @u 5 M.A. N0. 125 0f2002 drivers in the year 1994. The deceas‘ed was a married person. Therefore, the deduction of 1/3“ from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses also appears to be reasonabte in view of the general principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Basheer I Ahamed and Others —Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (200§L2 SCC 225. As far as multiplier is concerned, wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was aged about 45 years. However, in the post—mortem report, he has been shown to be aged about 6O years. lt is x t on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 6O years and has selected the multiplier of 9 which also appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we do not find any fault in approach of the Tribunal in determining the quantum of compensation. a (9) For the foregOing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation fails, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (10) There shall be no order as to cost. M set/— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha E CHIEF JUSTICE r Judge vatti