(^) (9c^-^ IN THEJ-fON'BLE_HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {CG^ Sinaie MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (0 N0. /OC?^-OF 2009 APPELLANT ft.» ^^ '^"" •.^^""^^" ^^^.^^ i\^-" .. , RESPONDENTS Hem Das Sonwani Son of Babu Lal Sonwani, aged about 53 years, R/o. Village Siwni, Post, Murta, P.S. and Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). i^' .'? . ^^•ssff^'" VERSUS /.< 5.. Smt. Uttra Bai, Wife of Ram Singh, Sonwani, aged about 35 years, Occupation House Wife, Ram Singh Sonwani, Son of Latel Sonwani, aged about 45 years, Occupation Agriculture labour, Both R/o. Village Siwni, Post, Murta, P.S. and Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). Ghanshyam Son of Premdas Satnami, aged 19 years, R/o. Kirna, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Pramod Kumar Tatiya, Son of Laxmichand Tatiya, R/o. Village Arjuni, Post Arjuni, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.), The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Kachhari Chowk, Madina Building, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 20,00,000/- ^^" Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs. 1,68,500/- Claimed in thisMemo ofAppeal : Rs. 1,68,500/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 r sn^i WT R-ii'* WIT Sf^S snira WHWI SbNieil 3^'^iraicW, snl'y'i^, ^wy f<lft,C '^t0. i03~L/^ riq?-"--"------------l"-^200 sn^?r TRW ('^(3^?) TOiiwafCT sii^i • tXfws e's '• ra»^iii< onxM VUS»IAIK'£/^llaj 24-8-2009 Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocati Heard on adinission. 2. This owner's appeal is dj 2009 passed by the Additioi]|al Beiiietara, Distt. Durg in Claijii aad aaofher -v- Ghaasbyam ^ad an amouiLt of Rs. 1,68,500/- in favour of the claimants ali| froin the date ofapplication i.e| 3. Bri.cf facts givingrise to owner of aiatador beariag reg 11-2008, due to rash aiid negl the said vehicle tumed turfle Golu Sonvani died, who was was lodged faefore Beiuetara 4. The clai'Tnants pi'eferred the Motor Vehicles Act cl agamst llie owuer, driver aud on a close scrutiay of the evidi the impugued award awardiai 6% per anriiiin fi-oin the date o 'tiifd'fl-f iiFreif ^f fest <Fnt{i< ^aiRitign^i for the appeBaat. -ected against the awaid dated 14-5- Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Case No. 74/2008 (Smt. Uttra Bai others) whex^by and wheTeunder bas been awarded as coinpensation 'ng wifh interest @ 6% per aanum 8-10-2008. PUS appeal are fhat fhe appeUaats is tsti-ation No. CG- 04-A-9331. On 9- Igent driviag offhe respondent No. 3, ia the said accident Nirbhav alias [sittiag ia the said inatador. Report stetion aad chaUan was filed. abd popice ^a applicatiou under Section 166 of Lg Rs. 2Q lacs as coxapensation Imsiirer ofthe vetucle. Tbe Tnbunal jnce led aad inaterial placed, passed ps. 1,68,500/- aloag with iaterest application i.e. 8-10^2008 in favour CS5»,K -HC—78 an^i ^rfiFiw n«ffS^T sFRNT T5? -^WM^, ^WW, h<fwy. (v^-cy^ 10^)1^7 ^ W«<tl(h*ll<h "^200 3fT$!(l W'V (^f^fl) TOIIW ^iter sii^( ofthe claiaiaats as against 4ie appeUant exonerating the iasurance conipany froia fhe liability. tbe 5. SUri P.P. Sahul, learji subniits that fhe amouut avt; the claimants are parents Sonvaniwho was-aged aboup: was student of Class 8th aadl by the Tribunal is on highej placed by Shri Sahu upon matter of SSuaicipal Corpori lyer and aaother reported i^ of this Court in the mattei Sitaram Marar aad othersl wherein it has been held ,fh.i are pareiits of tbe deceased, claimants are not non-eaminfe the claimants by the Bahuj, the matador was eugaged at child death, inultiplier syste]|c takine notional incoine into 6. I have heard learaed c unpugned award. <<ii<if<-i<fl-f ^iwif ^' fezt <l"itsi< ^siRitisii^r led counsel for the appeUant would ^arded is shockmgly on higher side as |of the deceased Nirbhay alias Golu 17 years at the time of accident and therefore, fhe niultipUer of 16 applied side and for ttus, reliaace tias been judginent of Supreine Court in the ^tion of Greatea- Bombay -v- Laxiaaa (2003) 8 SCC 731 and the judgment of Bablu Sheiith aad aaother -v- 1 reported ia 2008(2) CGLJ 285 (DB) l.t ia fhose cases where the claimants jnultipKer should never exceed 10; fhe nieiabers; Rs. 1 lac has been paid to Saniaj Party on whose procession, jthe tune ofaccident; and in cases of ]|n ought not to have been applied by dn ct>nsideration. uiisel for the parties aad perused fhe (l -h ^ f "'•^.'"^^ '- y -/XI-He—78 WHWI tt»*11<=l» -s-sr •^raraT, ^lwi^, Ptni'M'i''. ^.....m^^e:.....103^,o sn^r-q^q? (Tpfgq^r) TRDWdfel 3lA?l •3(I^!IV{ (<<-<i<* ?fSff 3TT^T St)*lR> ^Pffepfrt IWRif if 1^> •(te?T ^rsiRnsii^i It is true that in the c fhe Supreiae Coiut ia case ^ (ombay (supra), multiplier 'ase of parents, as per fhe decision of [>f Miinicipal Corporation of Oreater Ishould never exceed 10 but in this case, the accideat occuired i^ fhe year 2008 and, therefoic, iacoine taken iato consideration asjnotional income at Rs. 15,000/- per year is on lower side aad }t ought to have been taken as Rs. 36,000/- per year aad if ^-e deduct 1/2 of 36,000/- i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, and by multiplyin^ it by 10, tfae amount would coine to Rs. 1,80,000/-, the amouiit d^ore than the amouiit awarded by the Tribuiial, The Supreine Court ia| Ltd. -v- Syed Ibraliin and 4 observed in para 7 and 9 as uttder; the case of Oriental Insurance Co. thers reported in (2007) 11 SCC 512 "7. There are some a^pects ofhuman Ufe which are capdble ofmoneiary Tneasureni^p.t, bui fhe totality ofhuman life is like ihe beauty ofsunrise or^ftie splendour ofihe stars, beyond the reach of monetary ta]pe measure. The determination of Swnages for loss of hi^ian Vfe is an extremely diffzcutt iask and if becomes all ihe ^iore baffling when ihe deceased is a cdwld and/or a non-ear^.ing person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where ihe ddpeased was a child, he isas earmng nothing but had a ^-osped to eam. The question of assessment of compens^dion, therefore, becomes stiffer. The .Ty -t- XI-HC—78 sv^y v\ h-vv TWT 3TT^?T 9FflN? ~^ WRCTI a»*ii<n s^ •^l'ilW'4, wiiwis, Iqwi-Hy '&• to9>2-/o9 ri^---1----------"-"--"^ 200 •sfn^rira^ ('^3^?) ^niw'Hfsd sn^i figure of compensatior^ guesswork. In casesj relevanffactor would Vf 9. This Court in Ld computing compensa^ deoeasedchildrenfalK^ and age group oflO fe 9. Even applyiiig the di): matter of Orieiital Insuraad circuinstances of the prese^it deceased was aged 17 years awarded by fhe Tribunal 10. The next contention Tribuiial on appreciation ol stated by P.W. 1 Pratap Soi Uttra Bai nor such stateiaelit Therefoi^, the findings recorc be peiverse or iUegal on fhis 11. Uuder Section 168 of N be awarded is just conipeas^ The claimap.ts lost th.eir soa •*i'<l<-i'fl-< Tm^i ^ fsvS <(ai«<;ii iKsifinsii^a in such cases involves a good deal of where parenfs are tke daimants, age ofparents." ta Wadhwa [2001(8) SCC 197] while on made distinclion between ihe 'g within ihe age group of5 to lOyears '5 years.' |;tuin of the Suprexae Court in fhe Co. Ltd. (supra) in the facts and case,as in fh.e instant case, the ^t the time of accideiit, so the aaiount be said to be excessive. caitjiot rdised by Shri Sahu has no inerit. The eviden.ee held that what has been ^vaai was not supported by claimant was supported by aiiy docuinent. fed by fhe Tribunal caanot be said to tount. kfotor Vehicles Act, what is required to ^ion. It cannot be bounty nor charity. ^ged about 17 years and for ttiat, fhe .^ / 'XI-HC—7S sn^v w R-ii'* w?r sTr^T "g^Ttq? 'S^s'^pn^t, anlwie, f°«li'My (^.^^c-)^o- ^1/^ *<I*ICTI a»*<ira> "^.200 3^1 'VW (ip^pl^) S^ti^R ^lf^f 3TI^?T aniount awarded by the Tnb be excessive. 12. Therefore, in fhe amount awarded by fhe Tn\ cu-cuinstances of fhe preseijlt interference by this Coiirt. coAsidered 13. Therefore, fhe appeal stage itself 4»l^ld^1*1 Nl^dl "^f fsl<il <P»I<^K ^sifinsii^i .inal io. its discretion cannot be said to opituon of tliis Court, the (lunal is appropriate ia the facts aad case and it does not catt for any fafls aad is disinissed at adiaission Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge .s'-,