HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPURJ CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. &' Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J M.A. No. 545 of 2003 Sardar Ranjeet Singh & Others ^:. Vs. Punnu Ram&Others ^ JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^•f^ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA j <a-^r^^- u -— ^- Sd/- Justice Post for Judgment : Jj10/2010 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge :."^s^^ • ^ i\'iw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. F Aepellants Claimants ^.-. M.A. No. 545 of 2003 Sardar Ranjeet Singh S/o Sri Sardar Buta Singh Hura, Agedabout 35 years Saras S/o Sri Ranjeet Singh, Aged about 11 years Nimisha D/o. Sri Ranjeet Singh, Aged about 10years Appellant No.2 & 3, their Natural Guardian Father Sardar Ranjeet Singh Hura All R/o Punjabi Para, Bemetara, Police Station & Tahsit- Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.) L. Respondents Non-Applicants Versus Punnu Ram S/o Sri Sita Ram Satnami, Aged about 34 years, R/o Village- Potiya Road, Kundra para, Durg, Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) Sardar Lakha Singh S/o Sri Sardar Guru Vachan Singh, Aged about 42 years, Vehicle Owner- Khalsa Garage, Ganj-Para, R/o Santrabadi- Durg, Tahsil & District.Durg (C.G.) Narendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Amarjeet Singh Punjabi, Aged about - 45 years, R/o Santra Badi- Durg, Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co. Limited, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road-Durg, District Durg (C.G.) -..^ ^rf' M.A.No. 545 of 2003 (Appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Appearance: Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. None for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Shree KumarAgrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4/lnsurer. JUDGMENT (1. .10.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by SunU Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 27/2002, by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara vide award dated 19thApril, 2003. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellants/claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased- Paramjeet Kaur, filed a Claim Petition u/s J 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,56,600/- for her death in the motor accident which took place on 13.2.2002, when passenger bus, in which, the deceased was traveling was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. MBS 1848 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver. The deceased was a house wife. She was sitting on a right window seat of the bus. She was vomiting after taking out her head from the window. The allegations are that offending vehicle truck came from opposite direction, dashed the bus on right / M.A. No. 545 of2003 front portjon and thereafter it dashed the right side portion of the bus and it also dashed on the head of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. The owner and driver of the truck remained ex-parte. The Insurer of the truck filed its wrjtten statement and took a defence that owner, driver and insurer of the bus were also necessary parties. The claimants examined Ranjeet Singh (AW-1) and Gurubhekh Singhlr(AW-2)rin support of their Claim Petition. However, the non-applicants did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased also contribcited lo'the accident. Since the deceased was a house wife, the Tribunal assessed the compensation as Rs.80,000/- in lumpsum and deducted Rs.40,000/- on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased- Paramjeet Kaur. Over and above, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and thus the Tribunal awardedRs.52,000/- as the total amount of compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% pen-annum from the date of filingofthe Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. K (3) Mr. Vikram Dixit, 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. On the basis of entire evidence available on record, it was proved that the truck dashed the right front portion of the bus and it also dashed against its entire .y^^ ^ ^f '^ ^ ^^ss^ M.A.J^a 545 of 2003 right portion and the deceased who was vomiting from ow was also dashed by the truck on her head. He also argued that the assessment of compensation was also not proper, the Tribunal ought to have determined the compensation by applying multiplier method. (4) Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4/lnsurance Company, opposed these arguments and suppori:ed the award pass^d by the Claims Tribunal. ./'"~ L (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. L; (6) Deceased and her family members were going for a barat in the said bus. The deceased was sitting on a right window seat. It comes in the evidence of Ranjeet Singh (AW-1) and Gurubhekh Singh (AW-2) that when the deceased was vomiting from the window, the offending truck came from opposite direction and dashed against the right front portion of the bus and thereafter it also dashed against the right portion of the body of the bus, due to which, the head of the deceased was also dashed by the truck. Even if the deceased was vomiting after putting out her head from the window seat, she would not have projected her head in such manner that in normal circumstances some other vehicle would dash her head. It would only be possible when the other vehicle would be driven in negligent manner or it would dash against the :'^.'"r l... <.,. M.A. No. 545 of2003 vehicle in which the deceased was traveling, because in normal situation the gap between the two vehicles are such that even if somebody slightly takes out his head or any other portion of the body it is never dashed by the passing vehicle.It appears thatthe deceased had slightly taken out her head from the bus for vomit so that the vomit may not fallinside the bus. In the F.1.R. (Ex.-P/1), it comes that the offending truck has dashed against the bus and it has passed through bus rubbingthe right portion ofthebus also. In the above facts and circumstances, it cannbt be said that the deceased also contributed to the accident,and finding of contributory negligence cannot be sustained. Therefore, we set-aside the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal and hold that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, and driver, owner and insurer of the truck were liable to pay entire compensation. (7) A lumpsum compensation of Rs.80,000/- is also baseless. If the income of the deceased was not proved, the Tribunal ought to have based its calculation on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule prepared u/s 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the year 1994. Looking to rise of prices of essential commodities and cost of living in between 1994 to 2002, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 can be taken as Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. Therefore, we propose to re-compute -t 6 M.A.No. 545 of2003 the compensation by taking the income of the d^ee^sed as Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.30,000/-, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 32 years and the claimants were aged about 35, 11 & 10 years on the date ofithe accjdent, therefore, the appropriate multiplier in this case would be 14. By applying multiplier of 14 to the annual dependencyof Rs.15,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.2,10,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs. 15.000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,25,0000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.52,000/-. By deducting Rs.52,000/- from Rs.2,25,000/-, the balance comes to Rs.1,73,000/-,which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased- Paramjeet Kaur in the motor accident. (8) To avoidfurther complications and looking to the delay caused ^- in disposal oftheCIaim Petition as also the claimant's appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, which we quantify as Rs.17,000/- in thjs matter. (9) Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,90,0007- more (Rs. 1,73,0007- as the enhanced amount of M.A. No. 545 of2003 compensation and Rs.17,000/- as the amount of qua terest on the enhanced amount) which they shall received from the New India Insurance Company/respondent No.4. (10) The New India Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.4 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. ^ ^i.^-' (11) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (12) There shall be no order as to the cost. sd/- Cbief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vaai