l^ HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISiSNfiENCH^ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CNANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (Cl No. 1143 ol 2088 Appellant Ramsundar, S/o Late Bhaiyram aged Claimant about 35 years, Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Lahaptara, PS LaWianpur, Presently R/o vyiage Panchira, PS & Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C<3) Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Vlnod Tiwari, S/o Ramdhani Thwari, Aged about 28 years, Occupatlon Driver, FVo Village Bhartiya, PS & Distrtet Gadawa (Jharkhand) Present R/o Babupara, Ambikapur, Through Vehicle Ownw : Yogesh Pratap Singh, S/o BP Singh, R/o Batwpara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) (Driver) Yogesh Pratap Singh, S/o BP Singh, R/o Babupara, Ambikapur, Distrid Sarguja (CG) (Owner) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) (Insurer) Miscellaneous Apoeal under SecUon 173 of Motw Vehicles Act Present : Shri AK Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay IWshra, counsel for respondwt No.3. ORDER (04'hJuly,2011) ^o ujuw^i""""''*-"^^^' 1V^S The fbllowing order of the Court was paswd by Rajeev Gupta, G.J. The unfortunate son of deceased Dulari Bal is the sole appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awareled bythe2"dAdditl(aialMotorAqcidentCla)ms Trtbunal, Surajpur (for short 'the Trlbunal') vide award ctated 09.05.2008, passed jn Claim Gase No.54/2006. 2) As against the compensErtion of Ra.1@,00,000/-, ctalmed by the appellarrt/ctalmant, unfortunate son of decea^xt Dulart Bai, by flting a claim petition under Sectlon 1 of the Mrtor Vehlclea Act, for her death in the motor accideiit on 10.02.2005, the TriiMinal awarded atotalsum ofRs.1,14,50Q/- as compensation along viAti interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petitloo till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scruUny of liie antira evidence lect before it hetd that the claimant's mother Dulari Bai dled on aceiunt of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 10.02.2005; the accident occurreddue to rash and'negligent driving of the driver of the offendtng vehtete Bumper bearing registration No.CG-15 A/1300; as the above offendlng vehksle Dumper on the date of the acoident, was insuied wlththe Orientd InsuranceCompany Limited, andthetnsuranceCon'yany<»uldnot establish any breach of the policy condiUons, the Ireurance Company was llable to pay compensation to the ctelmant. ^" {^ '^ Sr' ^^Vi. ''•% r e. »!' 'S^-i^:-V:-sS~'~... ;;; 'VSS'SSi: S -ssats»is e ^ "ws ~e^»Se<a' *v", l&«aa«8'«—"g;^. '^ •~-L;^' 4) As the respondents have not fited any appeal against the award, the above flndlngs recerded by ttie Tribunal hav now attalned finallty. 5) The Tribunal assessed the iroome of the decea^ at Rs.15,000/- per annum, on the basis of the ndional ImsCTne prescribal In the Second Schedute under Section 183-A of ti Motor Vehlcles Act. By deductlr^ 1/3"' of Rs.15,OOQ/-towtu'ds 8 pereonal expenses of the deceased, the claimaitfs d^endency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By tnuftiptylng the annual dependency of Rs.10,(XXV- wlth the mulllpUer ofll, ttie compensation wasworked out to Rs.1,t0,000/-. By awraffding furthersum of Rs.2,OOW- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,50)/- forlossofestate,theTrtbunatawardedatotalsum8fffe.1,14,S(W- as compensatlon to Uie claimant for the death of his molher Dulari Bat in the motor accklent. The Tribunal further directad paymeRt of interest on the above amount of compensation of R8.1,14,50@/- @ 9% per annum from the date QT filing of the clalm peBtion W the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AK Shukla and Shri Atanu ©hose,teamed rounBel for the appellant submtttedlhd the Tribiniat has erred in not aceeptli^ the clatmant's evidence about the tncome of Vhe cteGeased and in assesslng her Income at Rs.15,OOQ/-per annum only; in selecting the lower multipller of 11; and In awardtng law cCTnperaatlon of Rs.1,14,50(y-onty. 7) ShrrAjay Mishra.leamed counset f<M-Fesp(mdentNo.3,the Oriental Insurance CfflnpaNiy Limited, the insurer of the offending - l" *^l"--w-.r~f vehide Dumper on the other hand supported ttie award and contended that as thesole claimant, the son ef the daseased was not at all dependent on the deceased, e conyensatlon of Rs.1,14,500/- awarded by the Tribunal hs juat aind proper compensatton inthefaclsanddroumstanGesofthepreBentcase. 8) In a m<rtor acciderrt claim case what'»tmportantis tlut Uw compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals sheukl be justand proper compensatton in the facts and circym^ances QfVhe case. It should nelther be a meager amount ofoompersartion, nor abonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine e®to whether the conipensation of Rs.1,14,50W- awarded by the Tribunal is jurt and preper compensatton hi the facts andGirGumstances ofthe presentease. 10) Tme, the ctaimant pteaded that his mother Ddtari Bai UBfidto eam Rs.6,000/- per month by sdling vegetaMes, no cogwrt and reliabte evklence was led before the Tribunal for establtshlng the Income ofthedecessed to theextent of Rs.6,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fautt In the approach of the tolbunal In discardlng the clalmant's evidence about tfie inBome of the deceased. 11) Neverthetess, the ln(»meof (he deceased asseswd by ttie Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum jn the year 2005 tecertafriy on the lowerside and requlres reconslderatl<»i. 12) Considering that deceased Dulari Bai was sged about SS years on the dale of the accident, weare of the ©plnlonthat, she could haveeaslly eamedRs.70-7%/-perday evenbyworWngas an .•S-'' ..h: ~~A»' ^y^ '^ ' lkR5;':¥!!ai, 'l 6 ^ unskllled labour in the year 2005, We therefore, ppcyose to re-compute the compensation tala'ng the IncomeGtfthedecaased at Rs.2,000/- per mortth and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) As there were only two memtoere In the flamlly of the deceased t.e. deceased Dulart Bai Iwselfand sole clalmant in the case, her son Ramsundar, we deem it proper to dedui^ 50% ofthe income of the deceased towards her perscmal expenses. %e olalmant's dependency, therefore, Is assessed at l%i.l2,000/- per annum only.' 14) Gonsictering that deceased Duteri Bai waa a®edabout 5S years, multlptier of 11 setect«lby the Tribunal is appropriate tn view of the dlctum of the Apex Court in thecase ofSwteVenmi (Smt) and olhers Versus Delhi Ttansport (^rporrtfam and another reported In (2009) 8 Supreme ^urt Cases 121-, whereln multipller of 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51-55 yeare. 15) By multlptylng ttie annual dependency of Rs.t2,00(y- wi i tha multiplier of 11, the compensation worteout to Rs.1,32,0@0/-. The claimant is further entttled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The clalmant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of R8.t,42,000/- s® compensatlon for thedeath of hls mothCT DulariBal In the motor accldent. 16) The clatmant is further awarded a sum of Rs.3,50(y- EB quantlfied amount of interest on the enhanced amaunt of eompensatlon of Rs.27,500/-. :':.-^'rsK^h^ ^-'\';'&1.' ^"•^•. ^.. •*•^^^ '"^^tesyKS^*'"'" f"''*?''^^--":^^-. subbu I -"W"'K r'1"' 6 ^ 17) For the foregiring resBons, the ^peai flled by the appellant/clalmant forenhancemerrt (rfthe compensatton is allowed In part. The compensation of Rs.1,14,500/» awafded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,42,000/- wlth ftirther quantlfted amount of interest of Rs.3,50Qf- on the enhanoed amount of compensatlonof Rs.27,500/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the Orientstf Insuraice Gompany Limlted Is granted three months' tlme <w d^osltti^ the total sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rs.27,500/- towards enhaiced amount of compensaUon + Rs.3,500/- towards cpjantlfled amourt of Irrterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27,500/-) betbre the conceming Claims Tribunat. 19) No order as to costs. /•"\ Sd/- Chief Justice R.N. Chandrakar s*