%. ^" ^ ^^ \ ^.w c^^ •!!:iaigKa HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DIVSSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 230 of 2®03 Appellants Original applicants Respondents Original Non- applicants 1. Venkat Rao, s/o Jadaiya Rao aged about 50 yeare. 2. Smt. Jai Laxmi, w/o. Venkat Rao, agedabout 45 years. Both resident of near Water Tank, G. Cabin, Charoda, P.S. Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. Batak Prasad, S/o Kartik Ram Satnami, resident of village Thor, P.S. Nandini Nagar, distt. Durg 2. Govardhan Agrawal, s/o Late Tularam Agrawal, r/o Link Road, Camp-2, Bhilai, distt. Durg (C.G,) 3. Smt. Avtar Kaur, w/o. not known, r/o M.I.G. 74, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg(C.G.). 4. Branch Manager, United India tnsurance Company Ltd., Tata Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.). MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT Present: Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Shri Santosh Tmrari, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Basant Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel - for respondent No.4. ^s QRDER tth aMiiisBsaim (O9'n December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Shrinivas are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.12.2002, passed in Claim Case No.38/1998. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,76,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants by filing a claim petition under Sectfon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Shrinivas in the motor accident on 19.11.1997, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as eompensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it hetd that the claimants' son Shrinivas died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.11.1997; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ofthe offending vehicte Truck bearing registrationNo.M.P.R-9211; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company coutd not estabtish any breach of the policy eonditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 'c5S3 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal again^ the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained flnatity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceasMl at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By deducting 1^3rd of Rs.12,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clajmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.8,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.^,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for loss of love and affectton, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compen^tion to the claimants for the death of their son Shrinivas in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Shri Santosh Tiwari, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has err«lin not awarding any sum towards toss of estate and in awarding low amount of Rs.2,000/- only towards funeral expehses; and in awrarding low compensation-of Rs.1,00,(XX)/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4 - the UnitKl India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended r""S8 that as the claimants coutd not establish any definite and regular income of their son Shrinivas, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal js just and proper compensation in the facteand circumstances qfthe present case. 8) Shri Basant Dewangan, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 Smt. Avtar Kaur, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal ought to have hetd the insurer of the vehicle only responsible for making payment to the ctaimants. 9) On due consideratlon of the submisstons of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that the claimants' sonShrinivas was aged about 20 years on the date ofthe accident and was unmarried; the nature of the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that the compensation asses^d by the Tribunal on account of loss of dependency does nrt suffer from any infirmity which may warrant enhancement in this appeal in that behalf. 10) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly erred in not awarding any sum towards toss of estate and in awarding low sum of Rs.2,000/- onty towards funeral expenses. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the mertter, we are of the opinjon that further award of Rs.10,000/- Inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation woukl make the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as |ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. "^"T^-^:'--F-— nqqns aSpnf eqniS ^euin-X nunS -/PS aaRsnr jai^D -/PS ^stsoo o»se japjo ON (^ (. •leunqui siureio Buiujaouoo aytajo^sq -/QOO'Ol.'sy lo uuns \vm 34»Buitjsodap JQJ auu .s^tuoui eajiii pa»uejBsj paruun Auediuoo aouejnajt eipui pa}iun 8t|t f'ON tuspuodsey (gt •leunqiJi 941 Aq papJBMe -/OOO'OO' I'sy io uins 941 oi uoitippe ui uoiiesuedtuoo p lunouie paoueiiua eiji uo lueuoduioo »s8J9)ui ^o 8Aisn|ou| -/000'01'sy p tuns jayyn^ pspjeme SJB siueiuieio 841 •Ijed ui paATO||B si 'ajojejsyt 'uoitBsusdiuoo ayi p tueiuaoueyus joi siueuiieio /siuB||addB si|» Aq psiy leadde 941 (z\,