^ HIGITCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR SINGLBBENCH: HON»BLESHM R. L. JHANWAR, J. ^ Misc. Aopeal (Cl No. 968/2007 APPELLANTS Smt. Goras Bai and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Ramsingh; Saini ' and others. O R D E R Poston IfcJulv, 2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar 'Judge \^ %-AS1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BlLASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRIR.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.(C)No. 968 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Plaintifrfs 1. Smt. Goras Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Siddheshwar Sagar, aged about 60 years, R/oNehru Nagar Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. SunainaSoni, W/o Shri Shailendra Soni, 23 years, C/o Deep Band Party, Behind Maharani Hospital, Chandani Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ramsingh Saini, S/o Shri Prem Singh Saini, Aged about 41 years, R/o Gurumit Nagar, Indore (M.P.) 2.Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, W/o Paramjeet SinghKaur, R/o 13, Bramhpuri Colony, lndore(M.P.) J 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT \ Appearance: Shri Santosh Bharat, counselfor theappellants. NoneforrespondentsNo.1 &2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counse'l for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon {L .07.2010) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (in short 'the Triibunal') vide award dated 05.05.2007 passed in Claim case No. 30/2006. 2. In this case, the claimants filed the claim petition ^peking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Suraj Sagar in^motor ^- 1 i' i...,. '^ It ~s i '"^-••^•'"' ^ accident took place on 14.01.2006. As against the said compensation sought by the claimants, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,600/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition on 1.4.2006 till the date of actual payment. 3. The deceased Suraj Sagar was the grand son of claimant No.1 and the brother of claimant No.2 - Sunaina Soni. 4. According to unfortunate claimants, the deceased Chait Sagar along with her family members was returning from Turturia fair in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G.05 B 8301 on 14.01.2006 (for short 'Maruti Van'). When the said Maruti Van reached near Bhoring Chowk, Tumgaon, respondent No. 1, who was driving the truck bearing registration No.M.P.09 KC 1292 (henceforth 'the truck'), in a rash negligent manner and was coming from opposite direction, dashed the Maruti Van. Due to collision, the deceased as well as all the inmates travelling in the Maruti Van have died on the spot. The truck was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondentNo.3. 5. Itwas also pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 22 years and was working as Sweeper on daily wages basis. 6. Before the Tribunal, since respondents No.1 & 2 did not contest the case, therefore, they were ex parte. The respondent No.3 - insurance company in its written statement denied the accident and also stated that claimants are married women, therefore, they are not dependents. It was also put forth by the insurance company that the incident took place due to head collision between the Maruti Van and the Truck; the insurance company of Maruti Van was not made as party, therefore, this case is not maintainable. It was also stated that in Maruti Van, there were number of passengers more than capacity, and therefore, violated the policy condition. It was also put forth by the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence on the date of accident. On these premises, the insurance company in this case urged that it is not responsible to pay compensation. 7. The learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that the deceased Suraj Sagar has died on the spot in the motor accident 6n 14.01.2006; the deceased died due to the motor accident took place qn 14.01 .2006 by the rash and negligent drivirig of the driver of the offending truck and the truck was insured with the insurance company on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. As respondent No.3 has not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 9. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence assessed the monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs.2000/- and Rs.24,000/-. After observing that the age of claimant No.1 is 60 years and that of claimant No,2 is 23 years, the Tribunal deducted 30% from the annual income of the deceased towards personal expenses and used multiplier of 13. After assessing the total dependency of the claimants, The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.93,600/-. In addition to this, the Tribunal also awarded asum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads. Thus, the total compensation was worked out by the Tribunal is Rs.1,18,600/-. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,18,000/-@7.5%. 10. Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding amount of Rs.1,18,000/-. He further argued that the Tribunal ought to have taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum; after deduction of 50% multiplier of 10 ought to have been used and on the basis compensation should have been calculated by the Tribunal. 11. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and no leniency in awarding higher compensation should be taken. According to him, the deceased was unmarried and the appellants/claimants are only dependents, therefore, one half (1/2) should be deducted and multiplier of 9 should be taken. 12. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, it is clear that the present claimants have filed 6 separate appeals for the death of Chandra Kumar Sagar, 45 years (Sweeper), Smt.-Chait Sagar, 40 years (housewife), Sandhya Sagar, 22 years (house lady), Supriya, 14 years (student), Suman Sagar, 15 years and Suraj Sagar, 22 years in one accident occurred on 14.01.2006. In the E^:! [^, ^ "^ ^y 4 present case, after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has found in paragraph 16 that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2000/- per month and has not taken notional income. 1 am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- as the deceased was unmarried. 13. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- which is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any scope in this case to enhance the compensation. 15. Consequently, this appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. i 1 Sd/- 1 R.L. Jhanwar Judge