n-i:- i i (^ ^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench:Hon'bleShri T.P. Sharma & Hon'bleShri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ, Misc. Appeal No. 503 of 2003 Appellants RespondentS Vs. Smt. Sagani Bai and another Seetaram andthreeothers ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION R.N. Chandrakar Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J. o>-l^y- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge POSTFORORDER ON 10-12-2010 .JODGF 10 /12/20ia lrl IJii' i:.ri ii;!^ ,<-^'.;<1: •^' ,0;-"""---ti .'';•' ,11 1|: -^SW^ •MiW 2-^> HIGHCOURTOFCHHAniSGARH.BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri T.P.Sharma & Hon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. ApDellants Claimants ResDondents Misc. Appeal No. 503 of2003 1) Smt.Sagani Bai, wife of Shri Nahdu Yadav, aged about 50 years, House Wife and cattling, resident of Bazaarpara, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 2) NanduYadav, son pf Sarha, aged about SOyears, ocGupation - cattling, resident of Bazaarpara, Bemetera, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1) Seetaram, son of Sundar Sahu, aged about 27 years, occupation - Driver, resident of Devri, PO Sarda, Police Station and Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). (DriverofvehiGle) 2) Devratan Tapadiya, owner of vehicle, son of Laxmichand, resident of Durg Road, Bemetera, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). (Owner of vehicle) 3) National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Statioh Road, Durg (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer ofthe vehicle) 4) Smt.Rukhmanibai, agedabout 19 years, widow of late Shri Pyare alias Chhotu, House wife, resident of village Pendn, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). (Appeal under Section 173 of the Wlotor Vehicles Act, 1988) Present: Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, counsel forrespondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER {Passed on 10-12-2010) 'v-. '-k ^ '^••^ s '"'9i ^fe ".-.,3&it '".'Sia.si)-' Per Rananath Chandrakar. J. 1. This is claimarits' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short,"the Tribunal"), Bemetara, vide award dated 29-11-2002 passed in claim case No. 31/2002. 2. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother and father of deceased Pyarelal, claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- by filing a claim petition under SectiQn 166ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 for his death in the motor accident, which took place on 3-6- 2002. 3. TheTribunal on aclose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deGeased-Pyarelal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 3-6-2002. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 07ZC 0584, as the offending vehicle on the date of the accident was insured with the National Irisurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the daimants. 4. The Tribunal assessed the income ofthe deceasedatRs.18,OQ07- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs. 18000/- towards peFsohal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12.240/- per annum. By multiplying the annjj?! dependency of Rs.12,240/- with the multiplier of 16, ttte compensation was worked out to Rs.1,95,840/-. By awarding furthersumof Rs.17000/- underother heads, the Tribunal awarded ^tl-.. ^. sl:y ^' a total sum of Rs.2,12,840/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased Pyarelal in the mother accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount ofcompensation of Rs.2,12,840/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri P.P. Sahu learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptingthe claimants' evidenGe about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.18,000/- per annum only and awarding low compensationofRs.2,12,840/-. 6 . Per contra, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company Ltd., supporting the impugned award submitted thatas the claimants eould not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded bythem, ttie compensation of Rs.2,12,840/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facfs and circumstancesof the present case. 7. Shri Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for thg respondents No.1 and 2 has also supported the impugned award. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused thel impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. In a motor acGidentclaim case, what is important is that the eompensation to be awarded by theCourts/Tribunal should bejuSI T •II INMill ^ i-.la and propercompensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Itshould neither be a meager amount of cbmpensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. The appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- - Rs.300/- per day. Tosupport their contention they have examined Smt. Rukhmani Bai (AW/1), Smt. Sagani Bai (AW/3) and Nandu Yadav (AW/4). Smt. Rukhmani Bai (AW/1) has stated that her husband was earning Rs.50/- per day by cattling and doing the work in hotel. She has also admitted in her crossexamination that her husband told her that he was earning Rs.50/- per day. Smt. Sagani Bai (AW/3), motherofthe deceased — Pyarelal deposed in para 3 that the deceased Pyarelal was cattling and was earning Rs.300/- per day. She has stated in her cross examination that Pyarelal was selling milk and cow-dung. Nandu Yadav (AVW4), father of the deceased also deposed that Pyarelal was earning Rs. 200/- - Rs. 300/- per day by selling milk 11. From perusal of the application presented by appellant No.1- Smt. Sagani Bai before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motbr Vehicles Act,1988, it is clear that there is no specific pleadiBig about the selling of milk by deceased - Pyarelal and the version |of Smt. Sagani Bai (AW/3) and Nandu Yadav(AW/4) hasnot been supported by.the version of Rukhmani Bai (AW/1) that deceased was earning Rs.200/- to Rs. 300/- per day. Exceptj oral evidence ofthese witnesses, no other evidence was lecljto prove such income of the deceased and even there was no 12. 13. ^ documentary evidence to prove that in-fact deceased was cattling and doing the work in hotel. However, the Tribunal on the basis of statement of AW/1 Smt. Rukhmani Bai in para 5 oftheapplication held that the deceased wasearningRs.50/- perday by selling milk. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the annual ineome of the deceased as Rs.18000/-. Considering the rise of prices of the essential commodities andcost of living in between 1994 - 2004 the income of Rs.18000/- can be takenon some higher side in the subsequent years. Be that as it may, admittedly, the deceased was selling milk and doingwork in labpur. Thus, deceased was skilled labour. The incideht took place in the year 2003. Thus, in any circumstance, it can be safelytaken that a male skilled labourwould have easily earned Rs.20QO/- per monthin the year 2002. Therefore, we deem it apprdpriate to re-compute the compensation by holding the ihcome of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- perannum. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs.16,000/- per annum. The deeeased was aged about 35 years. Apart from the above, the parents of the deceased were aged about 50 and 60 yesirs. Looking to the above facts and circumsfances, we deem]it appropriate to apply multiplier of 16 in this matter. By applyjhg multiplier of 16 to the annualdependency of Rs.16000/- compensation works out to Rs. 2,56,OOO/-. Thus, the the •it^KtdttBiSanfiiuiii ^2,0. ! - [ ji i n^ lil 1 appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,56,000/- as compensation for the death ofdeceased Pyarelal in the motor accident dn 3-6-2002. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,12,840/- to the appellants/claimants. By deducting Rs.2,12,840/- from Rs.2,56,000/-, the difference comes to Rs.44,160/- which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as amount of enhanced compensation for the death of deceased Pyarelal in the motor accident. 14. To avoid furthercomplicationsand looking to the delay causedin disposal oftheclaim petition asalso the claimants' appeal and ttat the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.4,000/- in this matter. 15. Therefore, theappellant/claimant No.1- Smt.Sagani Bai is entitfed to receive a sum of Rs.48,160/- (Rs.44,160/- as the enhancted amount of compensation and Rs. 4,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) whieh they shall receive from respondentNo.S/National Insurance Company Ltcf. 16. National Insurance Company Ltd./respdndent No.3 is granted thlree months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Clajms Tribunal. i i 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd7- T.P. Sharma Judge