F T^ 4^^4-'& ^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPAJR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 234 of 2009 / Appellant Claimant before the Tribunal Respondents Non-applicant before the Tribunal Smt. Bhaga Bai Nishad, w/o late Shri Ramji Nishad, aged about 60 years, r/o . near New Bus Stand, Dalli Rajhara Road, Balod, tahsil Balod, distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS Randj'eet Singh, s/o Shri Hira Singh Chandel, aged about 45 years, caste Rajput, r/o Kharka, distt. Chatazrpur M.P. (Driver & Owner of Truck No. M.P. 16H-0183) The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Branch Office, power House Bhilai, distt. Durg C.G. (Insurance Company of Truck No. M.P. 16H-0183) Misc. ApReal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri B.P. Singh and Shri A.C. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (14'"November,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims ,.•...-.•> '••& t,- r'^i- I.A.C.No. 234 of 2009 Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No.44/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/ daimant, unfortunate elder sister of deceased Smt. Janki Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 25.01.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Smt. Janki Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 25.01 .2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MP-16- H/0183; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach ofthe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering that the claimant could not establish any regular and independent income of deceased Sn^t.Janki Bai; and the fact that the claimant was not at all dependant on her younger sister Smt. Janki Bai, awarded only a 1 ^, %-.,-^1[/' "l;:i,... '•y".^ ' M.A.C.No. 234 of 2009 (L^ "7 Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of act.ual payment. 6) Shri B.P. Singh and Shri A.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant was not at all dependant on her younger sister, deceased Smt. Janki Bai; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.50,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Manjuri Bera Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1962, supported the award and contended that as the claimant could not establish that she was dependant on her younger sister deceased Smt. Janki Bai, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) The sole claimant in the present case Smt. Bhaga Bai Nishad was aged about 60-65 years on the date of the accident. The claimant is elder sister of deceased Smt. Janki Bai. In the claim petition there is not even a whisper about the deceased having any regular and independent income of her own. On the contrary, it has been specifically pleaded that she was a ^ household lady. The claimant, in her evidence before the •V ,A.C. No. 234 of 2009 ^ Tribunal, has also not stated that her sister deceased Smt. Janki Bai was having any income at all. As the deceased was not having any income of her own, there is no question of the claimant being dependant on the income of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the sole claimant in the case i.e. Smt. Bhaga Bai Nishad was not at all dependant on her younger sister deceased Smt. Janki Bai. 9) The Apex Court in the case of Smt Manjuri Bera Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2007 AIR SCW1962,heldinpara16: "16. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae" 10) The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Manjuri Bera Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. M.A.C. No. 234 of 2009 ^ 11) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge ice subbu