y\~. i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i?i<?i%^i» BS-.iM^?' CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SHRi S!JN!L KUMAR SiNHA. J. I.A.No. 372 of 2003 Appeliants 1. RuKmanl Bai w/o Nand Ram Choudhary, aged about 44 vears. 2. Nand Ram Choudharv. s/o Daya Ram 48 yesrs, Both R/G Village & Post: Sankara (Jok) Thana :; Basns, Distt: Mahasamund. ;ESPONDENTS 1. Ram Vishal Sharma R/o Contractors Colony, Supeia, (Bhiia]) Distt: Durg. 2. Santosh Sharma s/o Ram vishal Sharma Aaed 26 years, R/o Supeia, Bhliai, Distt : Durg. 3. Oriental Insurance Company Llmited, Branch : 3h!!ai, Po«vsr House, Tehsil & Distt. Dura. Appeal under Sectlon 173 Motor vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsei forthe appeliants. None appsars for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for icopuiiUtiiil r\iu. <kj. I.A.No. 391 of 2003 ADDellant K! <^)"ii)inn*?ir»4> Non-ciaimant Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilal, Tehsi! and district Dura (Chhattisaarh) Versus < 'ESPONDENTS ^l Alll^AMTe ^i-rtiivj/-ij^ ) O 2 Smt. Rukmani Bai, aged about 41 years, wlfe of Nand Ram Choudharv. Nandram Choudharv, aaed sbout 45 years, S/o Day'aram Both residents of vlllage & Post Sanksr (Joke), Poiice Station Basna, Distrlct rvlahasamund, Tehsj! Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Ram Vishal Sharma S/o not Known, resident of Contractors' Coiony, SupeSa, (Bhilai), Tehsil and District Durg (Chhsttisgarh). Santosh Sharma, aged about 26 years s/o Ramvisha! Sharma, resident of Supela, Bhi!ai, Tehsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Appeal under Section 173 IVIotor vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Rajendra Tripathi, iearned counsel for the appsilant. Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsel for respondents No. A S> ^ i CK <(:.. None appears for respondents No. 3 & 4. OR^E^R (24th Mgrch, 2QQS) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned award dated 1 5-02-2003 passed by the Eighth Addltiona! Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Durg (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in ciaim Case No.128/2002 has given rise to the fiiina of these two Misceilaneous ADoeals i.e. M.A. No. 372/2003 i i i'ii-1 I I I^J S M.A. No. 391/2003. The claimants have filed M.A. No. 372'2003 for enhancement of the compensation, wnereas M.A. No. 391/2003 is at the behest or the insurer of the offendin.q vehlcie aaainst ttie award. 2. The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased - K^ushal Prasad Choudhary, ciaimed compensation of Rs.50,75,000/'- by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for his death in the motor accident, when he was dashed by the offendina vehicle -truck bearing Registration No. iVi.P.26D/1762, resulting In multiple serious injuries to Kaushal Prasad Choudharv who succumbed to those iniuries on his way to the hospital. T'ne ciaimants further pleaded that their son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary used to earn about Rs.3,00.000/- per annum from agricuiture; by seiling miik; and by plying his jeep as taxi. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle - truck contested the ciaim and denled their liability to pav CQmpensation to the ciaimants. The driver and ovvner of the offending vehicle - truck pieaded that the driver of the truck was not responsibie for the accident, whereas the insurer took the plea that the truck was being ptied in breach of the policv conaitions. 4. The ciaimants examined AW1 - Nand Ram, AW2 - Mohanial NayaK & AW3 - Manoj Agrawal in support of their claim, whereas the driver, owner and insurer of the truck did not examine anv wrtness In rebutta!. (S^ 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutlny of the evidence led bet'ore it heid that the ciaimants' son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary died on account of the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17-03-1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offencilng vehicie - truck: as the offending vehicie - truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Companv Limited, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 6. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by the clalmants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of the Rs.36.000/- towards ths Dsrsorisi sxDerises of the cieceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 18, the compensation was w/orked out to Rs.4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of is.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards ioss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,39,500/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of their son Kaushal 'rasad Choudhary in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed pavment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,39,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petltion till the date of actuai payment. 7. Shri N.K. Vyas, tearned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 372/2003 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3.000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4.39,500/-. 8 . Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant / tnsurance Companv in M.A. No. 391/2003. on the other hand submitted that the Tribuna!. has erred in selectlng the higher muitiplier of 18 as the claimants were parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Couri: in the case of Munidpal Corporatlon of Greater Bmnbay Vs. Laxman lyer andAnother, reported in i2003) 8 SCC 731, the multiplier couid not have exceeded 10. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that c'aimants' son Kaushai Prasad Choudhary died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17-03-1999; and the driver of the offendlng vehicle - truck was responsible for the accident are based on the evidence of AW1 - Nand Ram, AW2 - Mohanial Nayak & AW3 - Manoj Agrawai. On a close scrutiny of their evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunat has rightSy recorded the above findings on their evidence. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important Is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribuna! should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. )t shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 11. Now. we shall examine as to what would be just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 12. Deceased - Kaushal Prasad Choudhary was aaed about 22 vears on the date of the accident. Though the claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from agricurture; by seliing milk; and by plying his commander jeep as taxi, there is no definite material about the income of the deceassd to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum as claimed by the claimants. 13. The Apex Court in some what simllar circumstances in the case of New Indla Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ S2S, while assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency observed in para 13as under:- "13. Considering the age of the deceased it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13. The M.A.C.T. itself found that the income was not estabtished. At some point of tlme it was stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000 per month. In the a&sence of any definite materia! about the income, monthly contribution to the family, after deduction for personal expenses is fixed at Rs.3,000 per month, i.e., annually Rs.36,000. Applylng the multipiier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.4,68,000. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim tiii the date of actual payment. It is stated that a sum of Rs.4,00,000 has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 4.4.2005. Balance shal! be deposited along with interest within two months from todav. Out of the tota! amount, 80 per cent shal! be kept ,ff-ii>STa^ .S'f'^fSl (b'r subbu 17. For the foreooing reasons. the compensation of Rs.4,39,500/- awarded by the Tribunai is reduced to Rs.3,67,500/- wrth interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunai. 18. From the records it appears that the entire amount of compensation with interest due thereon was deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal In compiiance of the order dated 18-06-2004, passed in M.A. No. 391/2003. The Tribuna! is directed to disburse the amount of compensation of Rs.3,67,500/- with interest due thereon to the claimants after adjusting the amount already withdrawn by the ctaimants in compliance of the order dated 18-06-2004. The balance amount, if any, after the above disbursal be reieased in favour of the appellant - insurance Company. 19. The Registry is directed to transmit the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appeltant - Insurance Company as mandatory deposit in M.A. No. 391/2003 to the concerning Claims Tribuna! immediately. Consequently, M.A. No. 372/2003, flled by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal falls and is hereby dismissed whereas M.A. No. 391/2003, filed by the Insurer of the offending vehicie is allowed in part. 21. No order as to costs. — - Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha sd/- \. i Judge Chief Justice |