CH HHATTISGAR ‘ " " “ «M O ’ ISC APPEAL No é l , 1 5 ‘ ‘ i l ppellants ’ ' V 1; I State of Chhattlsqarh ‘ ’ ¥ espondent No 1 & 2 I r /. ? Throughthe Chief Secretary, D K S Ralpur (CG) Bhavan, ‘ - v ' 2;} The Engineer In Chief ' ./ ’ (F&C), Water Resources - (Irrlgatlon) Department f ’ Ralpur (CG) Versus - Smt Usha Shukla /%~ Wd/o Late Shn s P ‘ Shukla Aged abopt 52 years R/o Near aSJId 57min H‘ Ku ' W s D/o Late S P Shukla, _ /o Near MaSJld Goal Goal Bazar Bilas ur(C Ukla, ‘ R esources (irrigation epartment Ralpu G t I, v I ‘ R ) 1 D r é; O A I R CORAM: Hon’hle Shri LM. Quddusi, J. & Hon’b!e Shri Ptashang Kumar Mishra, J. MA. E9. 691 of 2005 w$ State of Chhamsgath and another. WTS Sm’t. Usha Shukia and OtheIS, Shti Vinay Harit. Deputy Advocate Genetal for the smelappellanis. Shri Prakash Tiwari and Shri Akhiiesh Mishra, counse! for mpondems No. 1 & z. Versus w ( 0510mm) Fouowing oral order of the Conn was passed by l. M. Qudggsi, J. This appea! has been filed against the impugned award dated f 08l12l2004 passed by the Vlll Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Biiaspur in Ciaim Case No. 32I2004. (2) Brief facts of the case, as per the version e‘f ciaimants. are that on 05/0812003 deceased SP. Shuida was going from Raipur to Jagdalpur on Govt. official tour in department’s vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.C.G‘02-1 907. When the vehicte reached near Chiohadi bridge, village Farsagaon. the driver non-applicant No.3 driving the vehicie rashly and negiigentiy caused the aocident, as a result of which SP. Shulda and Vikas Chauha‘n sitting in the Tata Sumo received injuries. They Were taken to Primary Health Centre, Farsagaon where they were declared dead. Deceased was working in irrigation Department as Superintending Engineer. His monthly salary was Rs.21,5081-. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.56,00.000I-. The teamed claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1 1. 51, 725I- to the claimana. ,2 {K On the basis of pleadings made by the patties and the evidence adduced both oral as well as documentary, learned claims Tribunal. has held that the driver of the vehicle. non-applicant No. 3 Jaidev Ram Patel was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently causing death of the deceased. The subject vehicle was owned by the Government of (3) w Chhattisgarh. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver was not negligent and the finding regarding rash and negligent driving is perverse. He would also submit that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive and that the amount of pension, gratuity etc. paid to the widow/family of the deceased has not been deducted while calculating the amount of compensation. Per contra. learned counsel for respondent has' supported the impugned award and hasstated that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. (5) This Court shall tirst deal with the argument to the effect that the driver was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In this regard teamed Tribunal had discussed the evidence available on record, in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned award. Referring to the statement of the driver and applying the principle of res ipsa Iocutor, it has been found that e at the relevant time another truck was coming from the opposite side. therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle had taken the vehicle to its extreme left and because of sticky soil and due to rains the vehicle slipped and dashed against the tree and had fallen down. however the driver admits'that the road is National Highway and is 8O h. wide? Thus. it wouid clearly appear that at the relevant time it had rained heavily. therefore it was the duty of the driver to have driven the vehicle cautiously and ;13" carefuuy. It is thus found that the finding regarding rash and negligent driving is absolutely correct and it does not suffer from any perversity. (6) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount of pension. gratuity etc. paid to the widow of the family should have been deducted. This argument is referred only to be rejected. ln the matter of Lal Dei and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport reported in (2007) 8 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying its eariier judgment in the matter of Helen c. Rebello (Mrs.) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another. (1999) 1 SCC 90 has held thus in paragraph 4 of the report :— .li: L "4. lt is contended by the leamed counsel for the appellant that while calculating the dependency, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in deducting the family pension amount. We hnd that the submission made by the counsel for the appellant is correct. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating the dependency of the claimants. In Helen. C. Rebelfo Vs. Maharashtra SRTC,(1999) 1 SCC 9O this Court has specifically dealt with this question and said that the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore. the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calcuiating the compensation awarded to the claimants. ln view of this. the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family pension is set aside. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled for an l m . amount of Rs.10,27,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the filing of the petition." 4; ~LI, (7) in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the argument raised by the appeilant that amount of pension and gratuity should have been deducted has no substance and; it deserves outright rejection. (8) However, the Government had paid Rs.25,000l- ex’gratia payment due to death of the deceased which is liable to be deducted from the toss of dependency. (9) It is also to be seen that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal at the age of 58 years is lesser than that laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 $.C.C. 121 aocording to which the multiplier of 9 should have been applied and therefore after deducting 25.000I- the remainder comes to Rs‘ 12,60,002I-. Since no cross objection has been tiled by the claimants, the amount of compensation cannot be enhanced. However. in view of the wrong calculation and even after deducting 25,000l- the result comes to the same and therefore there is no scope of reducing the amount of compensation. (10) The learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly awarded penal interest. therefore, the penal interest part in the award is set-aside. Appeal allowed in part. ila (1 1) No order as to costs. Sd/— ‘ i Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra l.M.Quddusi Judge " ‘ i Judge