HIGH COURT OF CHHATT18GARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 617 of 2008 Appellants 1. Smt. Kumar Bai, widow of Late Jagana Ram Bhaskar, aged about 40 years. 2. Chhunnu Lal, son of Late Jagana Ram Bhaskar, aged about 22 years. 3. Bharat Lal, son of Late Jagana Ram Bhaskar, aged about 20 years. All are Satnami by caste, resident of village and Post Office Chowki Chilfi, Police Statioo -- Mungeli, Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1 Chandra Shekhar Kashyap, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Haldhar Kashyap, resident of village and Post Kosamtara, Police Station Mungelj, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (Regd. Owner & Driver of the Vehtele, Non-applicant No.1). 2 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Shiv Mohan Bhawan, VJdhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (CG) (Non-applicant No.2). Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Respondents Present: Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for the appellants. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri S.S. Rajput and Shri Santosh Trevari, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (11th April, 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, district Bitaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.05/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,50.000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of deceased Jagana Ram Bhaskar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for his death on 20.12.2004 on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.12.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of aotual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Jagana Ram Bhaskar died on 20.12.2004 on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.12.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcydist of the motorcycte bearing registration No.CG-IOBC/6497; though the above offending vehtole motorcycte on the date of the accident was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, the motorcydist who was driving the motorcyde at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants !< ."? '\ ~"";;t J ^. ^.. ••..^f /^ JI*i"llllU..^ and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycte. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 1 6,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- for toss of consortium to the widow; Rs.4,905/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,400/- for attendant; Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.4,000/- for conveyance; and Rs.1 ,200/- towards damage to ttie bicycte, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.2,59,505/-, whlch was rounded off to Rs.2,60,000/-. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitjon till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the appeltants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptlng the claimants' evidence about the income of the dec^sed and in assessing his jncome at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum; and Sn awarding low compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- only. 6) Shri S.S. Rajput and Shri Santosh Thwari, tearned counsel for respondent No.2 the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limjted, the insurer of the offending vehtole motorcycle, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the person ^':;::% 4 ,^ driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the motorcycle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) Shri R.N. Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Chandra Shekhar Kashyap, the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle submitted that the Tribunal has erred Inexonerating the insurer of the motorcycle and in holding the owner-cum-driver liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leadlng to exoneration of the insurer of the motorcycte is concerned, we gather from paras 8 to 14 of the impugned award that respondent No.1 Chandra Shekhar Kashysip, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license as the license which was produced before the Tribunal was a fake license, which though purported to have been issued from R.T.O. Bilaspur, was in fact never issued by R.T.O. Bilaspur. As the driving license produced by the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle before the Tribunal was a forged and fake driving license, we do not find any Infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the motorcycle from its Ijability to pay compensation to the claimants and holding the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle liable to pay compensation to the claimants. \ \.} 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal fs just and proper compensatjon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jagana Ram Bhaskar used to earn Rs.10 -12.000/- per month by working as Kotwar; by running Kirana Shop; by selllng milk; and from agriculture, the evjdence led in that behalf was not of cltnohing nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) The clalmants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/-towards personal expenses of the deceased. In fact, of the three claimants before the Tribunal two are major sons of the deceased. 12) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal also cannot b@ found fault with considering that deceased Jagana Ram Bhaskar was shown to be 42 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporatton and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes multiplier of 14 only for the age group between 41-45 years. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal etther on account ofthe assessment ofthe income ofthe deceased orthe claimants' dependency bythe Tribunalorthe multiplier selected. ^ "^ ..- ^ c--....^/''../^ 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/daimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. ) Sd/- S • Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal subbu