HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (0 No. 922 of 2007 APPELLANT Sunil Sinha Versus RESPONDENTS Vijay Soni and others. AWARD For consideration (3. -10-20 11 Sd/- T » Judge t3 -10-2011 Hon>ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta -9 ^u^-r^js—- Sd/- QiiefJustice Post for pronouncement of Award: i L^ -10-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge \.^ .^;.^^^^:- "' . vi y:r\ 3 ^ ^\ HIGiLCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL {C} No.922 of 2007 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Sunil Sinha, Son of Late Shri Anjani Sinha, aged about 24 years, Resident of Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Vijay Soni, son ' of Shri Satyanaraya Soni, aged about 35 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Kenapara, Police Station Jainagar, District Surguja (C.G.) (Driver) 2. P.S.Agrawal, son of Shri Nagarmal Agrawal, Shantinagr, Raipur, (C.G.) Temporary Address: Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Owner) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ambikapur,Through : Its Branch Manager, Ambikapur, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Insurer) 4. Subodh Sinha, son of Late Shri Anjani Sinha, aged about 26 years; 5. Ku. Sandhya Sinha, D/o late Shri Anjani Sinha, aged abouf 25 years. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT CLAIMANTS Coram: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 85 Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri V.K.Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. \A-~cv AWARD (Passedon }^ -10-2011) Per N.K. Aearwal, J. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Clainis Tribunal (F.T.C.), Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 14/2004 vide award dated 06.01.2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- claimed by the widow (since deceased), two major sons and one major daughter of deceased - Anjani Sinha by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for his death in the motor accident on 31.12.1991, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from 21.08.2004 till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.l i.e. driver of Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.27/5772; Anjani Sinha died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; respondent No.3/ Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensatibn as it could not establish violation of policy "\A conditions; asse^sed income of the deceased as Rs.2690/- per v\^ month and awarded Rs.4,16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from21.08.2004 till its actual payment. 4. Shri V.K.Pandey^Iearned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- only and thereby has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported the award and subm-itted: the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. True, as per claim petition, deceased was working S.E.C.L., Bishrampur as Clerk Grade-II and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, no cogent and clinching evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the above income of the deceased. 8. The salary slip produced in this case was not exhibited. ty-y.., Ij' '%• '\. /?•' 9. For our satisfaction, we have perused the above unexhibited salary slip. As per above salary slip, basic pay of the deceased is shown as Rs.1658/- per month. Besides that, the deceased was also getting Rs.29.76 as holidayD.A., Rs. 186.31 as overtime single pay, Rs.306.90/- as overtime double pay and Rs.23.00 as transport subsidy. Ifwe add the above amounts in the basic salary of the deceased shown in the pay slip as Rs.1658/-, it will be less than Rs.3000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. 10. The claimants have examined one A.D.P.Rao as their witness to prove income of the deceased but he? neither produced salary particulars nor proved salary slip of deceased - Anjani Sinha. On the contrary, his statement that basic salary of the deceased was Rs.2690/- runs counter to the basic salary ofRs.1658/- mentioned in the unexhibited salary slip. Further, the above statement, in the absence of record of S.E.C.L., is ofno avail. 11. The above witness categorically admitted in his statement paragraph 4 that Smt. Indu Sinha i.e. widow of deceased was given compassionate appointment, who took voluntary retirement before her death and due to her death, appellant - Sunil Sinha i.e. son of deceased was given appointment. Itt was further deposed by him that the same quarter was allotte'd to the claimants, in which, they were ir residing in the life time of deceased - Anjani Sinha and are getting all the service benefits enjoyed by them in his life time. 12. The Supreffle Courf iri case of Bhakra Becis Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt.) and others, reported in 2008 (11) SCC 366, has observed in paragraphs 12 6s 13 as under : "12. It is pointed out that the award as made is extremely high and the concept of just compensation has been lost sight of. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and additionally submitted that appeal of respondent No. 1 is pending. In normal course, when two appeals are directed against the common judgment, both the appeals should be heard by the same Bench of the High Court. But we find that the High Court had lost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. It is pointed out that respondent No. 1 was getting Rs.4700/- p.m. and a residence has been provided to her and actually the compassionate appointment was given immediately after the accident." 13. The Tribunal, while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per montfa i.e. Rs.36,000/- and after deducting one-third of it towards INNN^ personal expenses of the deceased, assessed claimants' yearly dependency as Rs.24,000/-. Looking to the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.3,84,000/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.32,000/- on other heads and thus has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% from 21.08.2004 till its actual payment. 14. The amount of compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of deceased - Anjani Sinha, when exarained in the context of above broad features of the case, the fact that although the accident had occurred in the year 1991 but the claim application was filed on 4.12.2001 and the fact that one of the faniily members of deceased was given compassionate appointment with all perks and pecuniary benefits, in our opinion, there is no scope for enhancenient in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- Cliief Justice Sd/- N.K. Ag^rwal Judge F-