@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. M. A. No. 832 of 2002 Nirakar Patel and another Vs. 'Smt. Rabia Begum and others And; M. A. N0. 956 of 2002 Smt. Rabiya Begum and others Vs. Munu Babu and others ORDER For consideration Sd/- ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA \9 aL/Eyr% ' d/— Chief Justice Post for Order /3 /04/201 O Sdl— " Sunil Kumar Sinha L Judge S .x APPELLANTS OWNER & DRWER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J. RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS NON-CLAI MANT 1. Nirakar Patei, aged about 38 years, S/o Premsai Patel, Occupation Agriculture, resident of Biiaigarh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) Munu Babu, S/o Keda, Occupation Driver of Tractor No. 26/E-4250 through Nirakar Patel, Village Bilaigarh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Smt. Rabia Begum, aged about- 60 years, Wfo Late Mohammad Usman. Mohammad Anwar, aged about 38 years, S/o Mohammad Usman. Memuna Bai, aged about 42 years, D/o Mohammad Usman. Ku. Jahira Bano, aged about 2O years, D/o Abdul Sattar. All residents of Village Jamgaon Tehsil & District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch office, Itwari Bazar, District, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 5 M. A. N0. 882 of 2002 M. A. No. 882 of 2002 & M. A. No. 956 of 2002 @9 And: M. A. No. 956 of 2002 APPELLANTS 1 . Smt. (CLAIMANTs) Rabiya Begam wd./o Mohd. Usman aged about 60 years. 2. Mohd. Anwar, S/o Mohd. Usman, aged about 38 years. 3. Memuna Bai, D/o Mohd. Usman, aged ahout 42 years. 4. Ku. Jahira Bano, D/o Abdul Sattar, aged about 20 years. AI! resident of Jamgoan, Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. Munu Babu, S/o Keda by profession Driver Tractor No. 26 E 4250, C/o Nirakar Patei, Vill. Biiaigarh, Tehsii — Dabhara, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (NON-APPLICANT) Nirakar Patel, S/o Premsai Patei, aged about 38 years, cultivation Occupation resident of Biiaigarh Tehsil Dabhra, Dist.- Biiaspur (C.G.) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Branch office, Itwari Bazar Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate for the owner and driver. lVlr. MK. Bhaduri, Advocate for the claimants. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the insurer. o iiri\‘ ..¥7\ -v-M 3 M. A. Na. 232 of 2ao2 & M. A. No. 956 or 2002 M? ORDER (/3 .o4.2o1o) FoHowing order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) These appeals have been directed against the award dated 24.09.2002 passed in Claim Case No.29/99 by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raigarh (C‘G.). (2) MA. No.882/2002 has been med by the owner and driver for setting aside the award, whereas, MA. No.956/2002 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under : The claimants, unfortunate mother, brother and sisters of deceased-Ashraf filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for his death in the motor accident on 24.07.97, when the tractor bearing registration No.MP-26—E-4250, on which the deceased was travelling along with his goods, met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor by its driver resulting into death of the deceased. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 32 years and was doing the business of selling some forest produce and his monthly income was Rs.6000/—. The owner and driver filed their written statement denying the contentions of the claimants. They pleaded that the deceased unauthorizedly 4 M. A. N0. 882 of 2002 & M. A. N0. 956 of 2002 boarded the tractor and fell down from the tractor on account of his own negligence. The insurer took the plea that the tractor and trolley was not insured with them, therefore, they were not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. - The claimants examined Rabia Begum (AW-1), Mohd. Sarfaraz (AW-2) and Mohd. Akhtar (AW-3) in - support of their claim petition, whereas, Munu Babu (NAW-1), driver of the tractor was examined in rebuttal. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by its driver. On the basis of notional income prescribed in the second schedule under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the annual dependency of the claimants was held as Rs.4500/—. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 to the said annuai dependency and compensation was worked out to Rs.76,500/—. By adding further sum of Rs.4500/- under other heads, the total amount of compensationwas worked out to Rs.81,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum. The owner and driver were jointly and severally held responsible to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants 1 to 3 only. (4) In MA. No.882/2002, l:A. No.811/2002 has been 1 fited under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure \ ' by the owner and driver with a prayer to admit on record the \ 5 ‘ M. A. No. 882 of 2002 & M. A. N0. 956 of 2002 @ seizure memo of the tractor and trolley filed in Criminal Case (Annexure A-1) and the copy of the insurance Polioy of the tractor (Annexure A—2). (5) Mr. H.S. PateL learned counsel for the owner and driver argued that the factum of lnsurance was not in the knowledge of the claimants during the pendency of the claim petition and the Insurance Company also did not disclose l that the vehicle was insured with them, therefore, the copy of the policy could not be filed before the Claims Tribunal. (6) This application was not opposed by learned counsel ~ forthe claimants ortheinsurer.ln view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow this application and take the documents on record. Therefore, LA. No. 8111/2002 is allowed and the above documents filed along the said application are taken on record. (7) Now we shall consider about the merits of the case. (8) Firstly, we shall consider the question about liability. ln the insurance policy, we find that premium of Rs.120/- has been paid for the basic liability and Rs.15/- has been paid for \ covering the risk of paid driver/workman No.1. According to \the pleadings of the claimants the deceased was neither a / paid driver nor workman of the tractor Even if we treat him as the owner of the goods loaded in the tractor, It was not /‘ \ / / i “j / 6 M. A. No. 882 of 2002 & M. A. No. 956 of 2002 ‘ permissible for the eceased to sit in the tractor along with d the driver. 1f we examine the case in hand in light of the insurance policy admitted on record, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company and the resuit would be only one i.e. the owner and driver of the tractor would be liable to pay compensation. Therefore, we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Patel for fixing the liability afresh in light of the insurance policy taken on record and we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the driver and owner were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. (9) About the quantum, the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly decided to go by notional income of Rs.1 5,000I-. (10) Mr. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the dependency determined as Rs.4500/- is not correct. (1 1) Even if we proceed to determine the compensation on our own, that would hardly make any difference in the total amount which has already been awarded by the Tribunal. For example if we deduct 50% from the income of the deceased for his personal expenses as he was a bachelor, s the dependency would come to Rs.7500/-. The multiplier in such cases where the claimants are the parents cannot be 7 M. A. No. 882 of 2002 & M. A. No. 956 of 2002 more than 10. By multiplying Rs.75,00l- with the multiplier of 1D, the compensation would come to Rs.75,000/-. By addition a further sum of Rs.4500/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.79,500/—, whereas, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.81 ,000/- to the claimants (12) The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. lt has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which l ’ would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in'the background of “jus” compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression “jus” denotes equitability, M. A. No. 882 of 2002 & M. A. No. 956 of 2002 @ fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Hamana and another —Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others {20031 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello @rsJ and others —vs- Maharashtra State Road Transgort Corporation and anothe_r,_ {1999) 1 SCC 90. (13) In View of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. (14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in these appeals. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and-are accordingiy dismissed. . (15) No order as to cost(s). /‘ ///‘ Sd/—” 7' "t SuniiKumar Sinha‘ Chief Justice ‘ Judge i ,2 a vi shyna i i