HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants Claimants c -^ -^ \\^ --.X'' c r~- RespQndents Owner Driver Insurer Misc. Appeal No. 947 of 2005 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sardar Harbhajan Singh s/o late Ajit Singh agedabout 50 years. Smt. Rajinder Kaur w/o Shri Harbhajan Singh aged about 45 years. Ku. Ranjit Kaur, D/o Harbhajan Singh aged about 19 years. Ku. Jasprit Kaur, D/o Harbhajan Singh aged ab^ut 17 years. Ku. Harprit Kaur, D/Q Harbhajan Singh aged about 15 years. No. 4 and 5 minors through Natural Guardian father Sardar Harbhajan Singh. All R/o Takhatplur, P.S. & Tahsil Takhatpur, district Bitaspur C.G. VERSUS Gurprit Singh Khanuja S/o Surendra Singh Khanuja R/o Vill & Post Kunda, Tahsil MungeJi, district kavardha C.G. Mohd. Ishak, s/o Usman aged about 30 years occupation driver R/o. Vil. Kunda, Tah. Mungeli Dist. Kavardha (Kabirdham) National Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur C.G. •/ y c .:-^ ^ c < MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT, 1988 Present: Shri AC Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel on behaif of Shri Raj Awasthi for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (14InFebruary,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additionat IVIotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bitaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 124/2004. 2) As agatnsttheCompensation of Rs.32,00,000/- ctaimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate. parents and sisters of deceased Lucky Singh, byfiling a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 07.08.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ,..,^,^.., 08.07.2003 , the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.3,33,802/- as compensation along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on aclose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Lucky Singh died on 07.08.2003 on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.07.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent c ^ -^ c < driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.CG-IOA/3558; as the above offending vehicle Minibus, on the date ofthe accident was insured with the Nationai Insurance Company Limited, and the insurance company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation wasworked out to Rs.1 ,70,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/- By awarding furthersumof Rs,1,53,801.69 towards the medical expenses, whjch was incurred on thetreatment of the deceased for a period ofaboutone month, the Tribunal awarde'Q^i total sum of Rs.3,33,802/- as compensation to the claimants. The TrSbunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,33,802/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri AC Sahu, learnedcounsel for theappedants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the c ^' c deceased at Rs.15,000/- per ahnum only; and in awardidg jow compensation of Rs.3,33,802/- only. 6) Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Raj Awasthi, for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,33,802/-awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum which we have assessed in other cases of the year 2003, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs.15,000/- per annum as 50% ofthe income ofthe deceased wilt have to be deducted towards his personal expenses in viewofthe fact that he was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictumof the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225,; as the claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier would be 10 only irfview of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case ot Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay Vs. Laxman /yerancfanof/ier,reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50.000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads and the sum of Rs.1,53,801.69 awarded by the Tribunal towards medical • ^> o expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,13,801.69, which is less than the sum of Rs.3,33,802/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not fjnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellants/ ctaimants for enhancement of the cpmpensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- I. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ' .y