cr-^s/- BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NO. ^o. /2006 iiosi Bgm ^ APPELLANTS APPLICANTS Cc 1. ^y '^••"" Rajo Bai, D/o. Jagat Ram aged about 45 years, caste Gond, resident of Devgarh, presently resided at Tapariya, P.S. Himgeer, Distt. Sundargarh (Orissa) Virajo Bai, daughter of Jagatram, aged about 42 years, caste ~ Gond, resident of Deogarh, presently resied at Bansdand, P.S. Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^ ;- RESPONDENTS ^NON-APPLICANT 1. 2. r Tarsem Singh S/o. Shri Pyara. Singh, C/o. R.B. Moters Ring Road, No.-l, Tatibandh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Oriental Insurance Co Limited, D.0. 2, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Kulwant Singh Sardar, son of Shri S. Singh, Transport Nagar, Tatibandh, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION l7S OF THE MOTOR .: VEHTCLEACT, 1988 //^ ^-€ HiGH COURT OF GHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. r0 SSSo. 70 of2006 APPELLANTS Rajo Bai and another. C!aimants Versus RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Tarsem Singh & others. D.B: Niscellaneous appeaj under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehidesAct.1988 Hon'ble Mr.Justjce N.K.Aaarwal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R-N.Chandrakar Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri W^im Miyan, counse! for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsej for the respondent No. 2. Per N.K. Aaarwal. J ORDER (08.11.2011) 1. This is daimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunai') passed in Claim Case No. 12/2006 vide its award dated 4.4.2006. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 15,88,000/- claimed by daughters of deceased Jagat Ram by fliing ciaim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehjcles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 17.09.2003, learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tjii its actua! payment. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held; the acddent had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CG 04/G 0528 by its driver i.e. respondent No.3 ; deceased Jagat Ram died on account of injuries sustained by hjm in the said accident; and awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimants aiong with interest @ sei^ '^^\ ^^s^ ^- 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of clajm petttion tii! its actual payment. 4. Shri Av^adh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miyan, learned counse! appearing for the appeliants v</hi!e admitting the fact that ciaimants Rajo Bai and Virajo Bal are married daughters of deceased Jagat Ram would submjt: the amount of compensation awarded by the Trlbunai is shockingly on jower side and deserves to be enhanced suitabiy. 5. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shrj Varun Dubey, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/Snsurance Company wouid submit: aithough the Tribuna! has awarded compensation to the ciaimants to the extent of Rs.28,000/- only but the appeiiants have aSready obtained compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicies Act. Therefore, in fact, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants. The Appeljants being married daughters, living separateiy from the deceased and aiso not dependants upon him, are not entitled for any sum over and above Rs.50,000/- and the award impugned does not cali for any interference. 6. We have heard iearned counsei for the partjes and perused the material availabie on record inciuding award impugned. 7. indisputably, Rajo Bai, aged about 45 years and Virajo Bai, aged about 42 years are married daughter of deceased Jagar Ram, iiving with their husbands. are not dependants upon the deceased. Deceased was also aged about 80 years at the time of accident. To c!aim compensation over and above no fauit compensation of Rs.50,000/- the appeiiants/ciaimants have to show their dependency over the deceased, which is not here. 8. The Supreme Court in case of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Orlental Insurance Compafiy Ltd.1, has held in para 13 & 20 as under: "13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim 1 2007 (10) SCC 643 ^•^;?y%:^V,. ^ 1 ^•':'-%:,& |!? •^f ^ application has to be considered in the background of right to entltlement. Whiie assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. in other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages whiie assessing the question of entitlement. FirstSy the liabjiity of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the iiabjiity, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primariiy in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. 20. Sn my opinion, "no-fault liabllity", envisaged in Section 140 ofthe said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of "strict liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000 in cases of death [Section 140 (2)]. Jt te a statutory liability. It js an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount te fixed amount/crystalijzed amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning mernber. The statutory compensation couid constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under "no-fault Siability" in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the "no-fault liability" under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by Jtself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." 9. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case and in the iight of above referred judgment of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Consequently, the appea! being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. D/- Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge