? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASHJR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS MA.(CtNo.379of2009 Mst.MangtJn ^i and others. Versus Anit KumarJaiswal andolhera. ORDER ForPronouncementofOrder 2-*\.06.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ;^*a.<^.~<,. <^ -*^'.»A. "^k ,-^^^ • "^ 'i-. ^s,^.,,,^^ ^ "^^^s^ ^ ••w.siifsys, S 1J -^y "9^-»Wssa' HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHFU R.L.JHANWAR. J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NQN-APPLJCANTS "~-f Miac. Appeal (Cl No.379 of 2008 1. Msit. Mangtin Ba\, W/o Lata Maitram Patel, 30 yeare, 2. Shakun Bai, D/o Late Maitram Patel, 16 years. 3. Dinesh Kumar, Slo Late Bteitram Patel, 14yeare, 4. Ku. SavHa, D/o Late Maitram Patel, 12 yeara, 5. Kamlesh, S/o Late ^4attram F^rtel, 5 years. Appellant No.2 to 5 minors through: Natural Guardian and mother Mst Manglin Bai, Wd/o Late Maitran Patel, 30 years, R/o Village Lata, P.S. Boria, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kablrdham (C.G.) 6. Rewa Ram, S/o Late Duldu ftrtel, 75 yeare, R/o Village Baghutola, Ou^>ost Bhoramdev, P.S. & Tahsll Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 7. Anjori, S/o Ramnath Patel, 73 yeare. 8. Smt. Agroutin Bai, W/o Shri Anjori Patel, 70years. Appetlants No. 7 & 8 R/o village Lata, Post Office Rajanavagaon, P.S. Borta, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Anil Kumar Jaiswal, 44 yeare, S/o Shri Hariprasad Jaiswal, Civit Contractor, R/o Vidyanagar, Ambikapur, At present R/o Shikshak Nagar, Kawardha, P.S. & Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. S. Kumar, S/o BharaUat Kaushik, 23 yeare, r/o Village Hathteva, P.S. & Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office 3 Middteton Street Post Box No.9292, Kolkata 700071. MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 'y ^ vy> •-"s.^i-y ^ Appearance: Shri Prafulla Bharat with Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Sri Kumar Agrawl, Senior Advocate wifh Shri Gupfai, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on <u«_.06.2011) This is daimanfs appeat seeking enhancement of compensaUon awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kablrdham (for short 'Claims Tribunal') in claim case No. 08Q008 vide order dated 20.1 1.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.12.2007 respondent No.2 was operating the L& T Loader (for short the offending vehicle'), whieh was engaged in excavation of soit. The respondent No.2 was qserating Vne offending vehicle In such rash and negligent manner that he could not nottee the persons on thoroughtere, dug up one wooden pole and the wooden pole choppeddown on Maitram Patel and he got injured. Hewas admitted in District Hospilal, Kawardha and thereafter he was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipurwhere he died. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.25,75,00(y- claimed by ttie unfbrtunate appellants/ctaimants by flllng claim petition under SecBon • 6 of theMotor Vehicles Actfor the death of Maitram in the motor acclctont, the Tribunal, on close scmtiny of the evldence, material placed and respecBve submissions of the parties, held that due to rash and n^ligent operaBon of offending vehicle by its driver, Maitram Patel sustained injuries on his head and died of such serious injuries and as the offending vehicto was insured with respondent No.3, the insurance company is sotely responsible to pay compensation. As the respondents have not flted smy appaal a^iinst the impugned award, the findings recorded by the Trlbunal have now attained finality. 3. Leamed counsel for the appellants / claimante submHted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding low con^ensation; tt»e leamed Tribunal has erred in taking the notional Income of Rs.30,080/- whereas it should at Rs.36,000/- per annum. On these premises, he urged that compensaBbn awarded bythe Tribunal may be enhanced. lf-a L ^\ f-( 4. On the other hand, leamed counset appearing for responctont No.3 argued that the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation, and therefore, need not be interferred vwth. 5. I have heard leamed counset appearing for the parties and have pemsed the impugned award including recerd. 6. It is clear from the pteadfngs and evideiwe adduced by ttie clalmants that due to rash and negligent operation of offending vehtele ty Ks drh»r/ respondent No.2 and as a result of which the deceased .Maitram Patel had lost his life in such motor accldent; The Tribunal righUy held that ch'ww / respondent No.2 was wholly responsibte for cause of accident, in whteh, Maitram Patel died of serious injuries sustained by him in such accident. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what Is tmportant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts andcircumstancas of the ease. Itshould neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 1 shall now examine as to whether the compensatton of Rs.3,50,000/- awarcted by the Tribunal is just and fair compensatton in the facts and clreuinstancesof the present case. 8. At the time of accident, the deceased was % yeare, as was takan by the Tribunal. The deceased was tilling the s^ricultural land aml <ws leading his life by agricultural income. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the claimants, assessedthe notiond income of th» deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum; deducted one-thlrd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and determined annual dependerwy at Rs.20,000/-. Taklng into account the age of the deceased and his fattisr, applied multiplier of 15 and worked out the total dependency at Rs.3,00,000/-. By adding sum of Rs.50,000/- under oltier perrnissible heads like mentel agony, ftjneral expenses and conveyance ete. In this manner, the Tribunal worked out total compensaUon of Rs.3,50,00(»-for the death of Maitram Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest at 8% per annum on the awarded amountwhich shall be payable from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Considering that the accident took place in the year 2007, filing of claim peUtton in ttie year 2008 and disposal of the claim petittoh in the year 2008,1 am of the considered opinion ttiat the J323- '^ Tribunal has rightty flxed income of the deceased by taldng notional bicom® of Rs.30,000/-. The approach of the Tribunal in deducttng one'third amowit towards personal expenses of the deceased, applying multi^wr of 15 and in awarding huge sum towards heads cannot be fauilted witti. In sum and substance, the amount of compensaUon <tf Rs.3,50,000/- snwarded by the Tribunal can not be faulted with. 9. The law in retaUon to awarding compensaUon in accident cases is well setded. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are undw obligation to award 'just and reasonable' compensaUon to the genuln®ctdmants after determining the factum ofaccident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of drwer ofthe offending vehicle. It has to be bome in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the viGtim. The statutory provisions clearty indicate that the compensation must be just and K cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensaUon, which shoukt be just and which would depend upon the particular facls and cireunistances, and attending peculiar or special f^tures, if any. Evary method or mode adopted fbr assessing compensation has to be considered hi the<»act<ground of "just" compensation which is ph/otal consjderation and requhes judteious approach. The expr^sion "jusf denotes equilabllity, faimess, reasonablenessand non-arbitrariness. Please see ®Eateof Hwywia and anathar -Vs- Jasbir Kaur and othws, (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Halen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Transport Coiporatlon andanother, (1999) 1 SCC 90. 10. For the foregoing reasons, l do not flnd my substance in the appeal as the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Trlbunal is just and reasonable compensation in the facts and eircumstances ofthe case. 11. Consequently, the appeal fited by the appeltants for enhanceraent of compensation is liable to beand is hereby dismissed. No order as tocosls. ^\ ^y Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge