t|Uk»'iSI%il'iRBaK8W®®:: ^iSSiSSSsSS HEGHGGURTOFCHHATTSSOAS^HATBSLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON*Bl.ESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA,4. Misc.ADDealNo.388of2003 ADpeJJants Ciajmants c ,'^.: -5^ """w c Responclents 1 Smt Aneshwari, age 35 years, Late ShankarLal Shesh 2 Shravan Kymar (Minor), age 14 years, S/o Late Shankar LaE Shesh 3 Ku Synita (Minor), age 7 years, D/o Late Shankar Lal Shesh 4 Ku Sita (Minor) age 10 years, D/o Late Shankar La! Shesh 5 Ku. Shushila (Minor) age 4 years, D/o LateShankarLaiShesh All appellants No.2 to 5 being minor represented thrQugh the appeIEant No. 1 Aneshwari Bai Aii resldent of village Umargaon, Tehsii Nagari, DistrictBhamtari(GG5 VERSUS Raju @ Ghanshyam Thakur; S/o Nahendra Singh, R/o Jhanbai CQlony, Dantewada, T^hsil and District Dantewada(CG) rDriverofthevehtdeMP.25-B/1622) Arun Gypta, S/o JP Gupta, R/o Gupta HoteE ?n front of Nsshra MedloaJ Shop, Dantewada, Tehsj! and District Dantewada(CG); (OwneroftheveiiicleMP.25-B/T622) The Oriental Jnsurance Co. Ltcf., ReglQrtai Branch Office, Sadar Bazar, IVtain Road Jagdalpur(Bastar)GG Misc. ApDeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri JA Lohani, counsei forthe appellants. Ms Sarina Khan, counsei for respondent No.2; Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER c -4- \ (§m0ctober, 2010) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta.CJ. This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Dhamtan (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 30.11.2002, passed in Ciaim Case No.104/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,25,000/- ciaimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Shankar Lal Shesh by fiiing a claim petltion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his death on 14.02.2001 on accountpftheinjuriessustained byhimin the motor accident on 13.02.20&1, the Tribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.6,01,080/- as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from thej date of the filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment.j 3) The TribLlnai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before It held th^t deceased Shankal Lai Shesh died on 14.02.2001 on account of tl^e injuries sustained by him in thelmotor accldent on 13.02.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent c -4. .\ c driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Jeep bearing registration NO.MP-25-B/1622; astheabove offendingvehicleJeep onthedateoftheaccidentwasinsuredwJththeOrientallnsyrance Company Umited, and the insurance Gompanycould not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insyrance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeai agalnst the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at 6,884/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency wasassessedatRs.4,884/-permonthahdRs.58,808/-perannum. By mujtiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.58,808/- with the muitipiier of 10, the compensatjon was worked out to Rs.5,88,080/-. By awarding jfurther sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads and !' Rs.3,000/- to^ards damage to the motorcycie of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,01,080/- ss compensation to the claimantsi for the death of deceased Shankal Lal Shesh in the motor acGiderat. The Tribunal, further directedl payment of interest on the abov^ amount of compensation of Rs.6,01,808/- @ 8.5% per annum frpm the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actualjpayment. 6) Shri J.pt Lohani, learned counsel 'for the appeliants vehemently ^rgued that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the ^ ^1 c. iower muitiptier of 10; and ;in awarding I6w compensatJon of Rs.6,01,080^Qnly. 7) Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental ihsurance Company 1-imited/ on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.6,01,080/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation. 8) Ms Sarina Khan, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 also supportedtheaward. 9) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be justandpropercompensationjnthefactsandcircumstancesofthe case.it should neither bea meageramount ofcompensation, nor abonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,01,080/- jawarded by fhe Tribunai js just and proper cpmpensatiorainthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. 11) Duringjthe course of hearing of the appeal, it has been brought to ow notice by learned counsel for the appeilants that appeiiant Na2 Shravan Kjjmar, son of deceased Shankai Lal Shesh was ^ranted compassionate appointment by the Poiice Department, ^herein deceased Shankai Lal Sltiesh was working as Constable at jthe time of his death. The pay-slip 6f appeliant No.2 Shravan Kurr|ar fiied by the ciaimants in the aDpeai reveais that at present heis irawing gross satary of Rs.13,514/- per month. %;1 ^?^,;^' "^ %.. -^"•^: '<i1, 1,/.J?^:J %;'i:, 'f^ ^^..jy 1;'-'^N^^?? ^ ^ s: v^ -<) 12) Even assuming that appellant No,2 Shravan Kumar at the time of his compassionate appointment, initiaily was getting only ^ Rs.3,000/-asSalary,thisamountofRs.3,000/-hastobetakeninto consideration in view ofthe dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs Smt Kanta Aggarwal & e Ors reported in 2008 AIR SCW S2S6 while assessing the loss of dependency of the claimants and the compensation payable to the ciaimants in the case. The annuat dependency of the claimants assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.4,884/- per month after deducting less than 1/3rd of Rs.6,884/- per month (saEary of the deceased whlch hewas getting atthetimeof theaccident), by adjusting onty Rs.2,884/- per month on account of the compassionate appointment, wouid remain only Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muJtiplying this annual dependency of Rs.24,QOO/-withthemultiplierpf15,suggestedbylearnedcounsel for the appettants, the compensation wouid work out to Rs.3,60,000/-l only, By awarding Rs.5,000/- towards funerat expenses and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for toss of consortium;to the widow, the claimaritswould become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.3,75,000/- only, which js much less than 1 the amount pf Rs.6,01.080/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. j 13) For thje foregoing reasons, we do not! find any scope for enhancement of thecompensation awarded by jthe Tribunal. "•;%<, •'%. padma c ^ -^ 6 14) The appeal fiied by the appeiiants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, faiis and is hereby dismjssed. 15) No orderasto costs. sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- s"nil Kumar Sinhi Judge ^'T