-^-•^•^' HIGH CT3URT OF CtiHATTI^aARH AT KLASPUR BDflStONreNCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRA^EVGUPTA,C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ApBellants Claimants Resoondents Non-apDlicants MIK;. Appeal No. 213 of2W6. 1 Smt. Ponam Bai, Age 23 yrs, wdow <sS Late Krishna Netam, By prirfession House-wife. 2 Yashwant Kumar, Age 06 yrs. S/o tate Wshna Netam, 3 Parmeshwar Kumar, age 03 yre. S/o Late Krishna Netam, 4 Ku. Savitri, Aged about 1 yr. D/o Late Krishna Netam, All the above appeltants No.2 to 4 are minor, represented by the aweltant No.1 (Mother). All the above appetlarts are :- R/o Ward No.4, Nayapara, Mahasamund, P.SYTah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G-). VERSUS 1 Tukaram Dewangan, Age_ yrs. S/o D.K. Dewangan, R/o ViBage Bhansoaj, P.8. Aurang, District Raipur (Owner of Metador NO.C.G.04ZB/0211) 2 The Manager, The New tndia tnsurance Company Limited, Branch Office.No.l, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Mari<et, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). (Ins. Com. OT Metador NO.C.G.04ZB/0211). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHIGLES ACT Present : Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, counsel for the appellants. Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (08th AprM, 2011) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This fs claimants' appeal for enhancement of ttre compensation awarded by the Second Addltional Motor Aecident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No.74/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,05,OCX)/-, claimed by theappellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Krishna Netam by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,48,750/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny <rf the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Krishna Netam dled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.04.2004; the deceased who was driving the Truck bearing registration No.C.G.- 06A^590 and the driver of the other vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-04-ZB/0211 equally contributed to the accident, in which drivers of both the vehicles died; as the above Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance .:J?Sum : ~f-:'^,. Company Lim'rted and the Insurance Company coukl not establish any breach of the poltey conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of ttre deeeased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 8y deducting 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1B,(XX)/- per annum. By multiplying annual dependerrey of Rs.16,000/- with the multipller of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under ofter heads, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.2,97,500/-. As deceased Krishna Netam who was driving the Truck at the time of the accictent was hetd Itable for the accident to the extent of 50%, ttw insurer of the other vehicle Metador was directed to pay Rs.1,48,750/- i.e. 50% of the compensation assessed at Rs.2,97,800/- to the claimants as compensation for the death of deceased ishna Netam in the motor accident. The Tribunat further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,48,750/- @ 6% per annum Trom the date of flling of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Jameet Akhtar Lohani, leamed counsel for the appetlants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Krishna Netam also equally contributed to e accident; and In awarding low compensation of Rs.1,48,750/- only. 6) Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Umited, the insurer of the other vehicle Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the drivers of both the vehides died in the accident, the Tribunal has rightly held theA deceased 10-ishna Netam also equally contributed to the accident. 7) Shri Govind Dewangan, leamed counsel for responds* No.1 Tukaram Dewangan, owner of the Metador also supported the award. 8) So far as the Tribunal's finding about the contributory n^ligence of deceased Krishna Netam to the extent of §0% is concerned, it is apparent from the pleadings-of the parties that ttie drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Truck and Metador died in the accident. Both the vehicles i.e. Truck and Metador were coming from the opposite directions. It was noon-time acddent and as such, the drivers of both the vehicles had full opportunity to avoid accident till the last moment. As the drivers of both the vehksl^ faited in avokling the accident, the Tribunal has rightty held that the drivers of both the vehicles equatly contributed to the accident. 9) On due consideration, we do not flnd any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Kri^tna Netam who was driving the Truck at the tfme ofthe accident equally contributed to the accident. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether thecompensation of •Rs^,97,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is Just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimanls pleaded that dwessed Krishna Netam used to get Rs.3,000/- per month as satary, no cogent and reliable IIN^ evidence was led before the Trtbunal to establish the income of ttie deceased to that extent. Even the employer of the deceasettf owner of the Truck was not examined before the Tribunal to establish the above fact that deceased Krishna Netam was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. In thls state of evldence, we do not flnd any infirmity in the assessriient of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- perannum. 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducUng the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,00<y- towards the personat expenses ofthe deceased. 13) The clalmants cannot have any legilimate grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplierprescribed in the Second Schedule under Srction 163-A of the Motor Vehictes Act. 14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Tribural. 15) The appeal fited by the appellants/claimants, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge subbu