^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 418 of 2009 Appellants Non-applicant No. 4 to 7 ^ IIIIIIIIB^' 1 Smt. Kesar Bai wd/o Manoj Gond, aged about 30 years. 2 Pankaj Gond s/o Manoj Gond, aged about14years, minor 3 Mukesh Gond, s/o late Manoj Gond, aged about 12 years, minor 4 Ku. Tulsi d/o late Manoj Gond aged about12years, minor On behalf of appellant No.2,3 & 4, through their guardian mother Smt. Kesar Bai Gond, All are r/o village : Piparchedi, post Bhothli, tahsil & district Dhamtari, C.G. VERSUS Respondents Jashveer Singh s/o Darshan Singh, Sikh, aged about 25 years, (driver of the offending vehicle) Darshan Singh, s/o Darbar Singh, Sikh, aged about 62 years, (registered owner of the offending vehicle) Both are r/o. A.C.C. Labour Camp, near Ram Mandir, Jamul, Bhilai, district Durg C.G. Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Thakkar Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, district Durg C.G. M.A,C.No.418of2009 ^a^ 4. Duryodhan s/o Banau Ram aged about 60 years, 5. Smt. Jageshwari Bai w/o. Duryodhan, aged about 55 years, applicants Both are r/o village Piparchedi, post Bhothli, tahsil & district Dhamtari C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri P.K. Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (30tnAugust,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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.87/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 14,00,0007- claimed by respondents No.4 Duryodhan and No.5 Smt. Jageshwari Bai, father and mother of deceased Manoj Gond, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, impleading the present appellants Smt. Kesar Bai, Pankaj Gond, Mukesh Gond and Ku. Tulsi, widow and minor children of deceased Manoj Gond, as non-applicants, for his death in the motor accident on 23.01.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per ^i ^^ ^ ^':^^ • / ^ ^ 1i 'i.1-^,. ^ '^ 1 '^^' g ^ &""'^t i A^^/ "'^uxs^-' M.A.C.No.418of2009 annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Manoj Gond died on account of the injuries sustained by himin the motor accident on 23.01.2008* deceased Manoj Gond who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident and the driver of the other vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.07C/0759 equally contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% each; the claimants i.e. Duryodhan and Smt. Jageshwari Bai, father and mother of deceased Manoj Gond were not at all dependent on deceased Manoj Gond and as such were not entitled to getany compensation and the entire compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal was payable to widow and minor children of deceased Manoj Gond; as the above Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New Jndia Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Companycould not establish any breach ofthe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under .3./ "^^s^^ .,^ M.A.C.No.418of2009 ^ ^ other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.1,82,000/-. As the driver of the Truck was held liable for the accident to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the Truck was directed to pay Rs.91,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.1,82,0007- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest oh the above amount of compensation of Rs.91,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Manoj Gond also equally contributed to the accident; in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.91,000/- only. 6) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the above Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of contributory negligence wherein the deceased himself also equally contributed to the accident; the compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- assessed and Rs.91,000/- awarded, by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Manoj Gond also equally contributed to the accident, it M.A.C.No.418of2009 h1—' is apparent from the contents of the First Information Report and the pleadings in the claim petition that the deceased was coming on his Motorcycle from one direction and the other Truck was coming from the other direction. As such, it was a case of head-on collision. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was driving his Mlotorcycle on his left side of the road, the spot-map/ site-plan prepared by the Pollce, a copy whereof was filed before the Tribunal by the claimants themselves, clearly indicate that the Motorcycle of the deceased at the time of the accident was on the extreme right side of the road. In the above factual scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Manoj Gond also equally contributed to the accident and as such, was liable to the extent of 50% for the accident. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,82,0007- assessed and Rs.91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Manoj Gond used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Mason, the document (Ration-card) produced by the appellants before the Tribunal (Ex.D/1) cuts through the above pleading of the claimants. In the ration-card of the deceased, it was categorically mentioned that the deceased was working as labour and his monthly income at the most was Rs.1,400/- (though the Tribunal has read it as Rs.400/- per month). Even assuming that the income of the M.A.C.No.418of2009 deceased was Rs.1,400/- per month, it would come to almost the same amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum taken by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Manoj Gond was shown to be 38 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 15 only for the age group between 36-40 years. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do notfind any scope for enhancement of the compensation assessed/ awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. _— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^