^ ^? a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 837of 2007 APPELLANT : Ranu RESPONDENTS VERSUS Satyanarayan Rajwade and others AWARD FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 3 t^^^£:^Y'<2-S2_ Sd/- Chief Justice 7 .12.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge "; .12.2011 For Pronouncement of Award ig'.12.2011 Sd/- ^.K.Ag^aV Judge "7~ M'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC^APPEALld No. 837 of 2007 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS Ranu, widow of late Shri Sanjay, aged about 20 years, Caste Harijan, Resident of Village Sonpur, Police Station Surajpur, District -Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Satyanarayan Rajwade, son of Shri Ramlal Rajwade, aged about 25 years, Occupation Driver, Caste Rajwar, Resident of Village Beltekri, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Bajrang Lal Agrawal, son of Shri Satyapal Agrawal, aged about 45 years, Occupation Business/Owner of the Vehicle, Resident of Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, through: The Branch Manager, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Insurer) 4. Satyaprakash Rathore, Son of Shri G.L. Rathore, Occupation Gram Sevak, Service, Resident of Nagar/Police Station/Tahsil Shajapur, District Shajapur (M.P.) 5. Nirmal Kumar, Son of Shri Sopariram, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Sonpur, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 6. Sopariram, son of Shri Devman, aged about 45 years; 7. Raniya Bai, wife of Shri Sopariram, aged about 40 years; ^•--»ss .,^.^.\ '? -ift^A I -v^/ -^!" \/ All castes of Harijan, Resident of village Sonpur, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Corain: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT: Shri A.K.Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for respondents No.l and 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 Shri Harsh Mahaht, counsel for respondent No.5 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. AWARD (Passedon ^ -12-2011) Per N.K._Agarwal, J. Heard on I.A.No.01/2011, i.e., application for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection/cross-appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2D11 is allowed and the delay in filing the cross-objection/cross-appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on cross-objection preferred by respondents No.6 and 7. The same is admitted forhearing. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatislied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, in claim case No. 44/2006 vide award dated 24.01.2007, instant appeal has been preferred by f<'B:?~*'i'3..\ '""rfSS. '~1!^,''> '^ ''^ 1 :;.5»---yE?. § the appellant/wife of deceased - Sanjay for enhancement of compensatlon. 5. Respondents No. 6 SE 7, i.e., parents of deceased - Sanjay also preferred cross-objection/cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation with the prayer that the entire enhanced am.ount of compensation be awarded in their favour e^uding widow of deceased. 6, As against compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by respondents No. 6 & 7, i.e., parents of deceased and appellant, i.e., wife of deceased - Sanjay by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth the Acf) for the death of Sanjay in the motor accident on 02.01.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment, apportioning it between respondents No.6 SE, 7 and the appellant in the ratio of 25:25: 50 percent. 7. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Dumpher bearing registration No.B.P. 06-A/2472 by its driver Satyanarayan Rajwade, i.e., respondent No.l; Sanjay died on account of injuries sustained in the said accident; respondent No.4/the United India Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy ^l t conditions; assessed and awarded Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 8. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant, i.e., widow of deceased - Sanjay, contended, the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration fhe notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/-, as prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163A ofthe Act; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- only. It was further submitted, the appellant is a young lady, lost her husband, i.e., her bread eamer and was solely dependent upon him whereas the parents are not dependents upon deceased. The allegation of reniarriage of the appellant levelled by respondents No.6 and 7 was found false by the Tribunal and in the above circumstances, the appellant is the only person who is entitled for entire enhanced amount of compensation. 9. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 7, while supporting the prayer for enhEincement of compensation, vehemently opposed the entitlenient of the appellant for the entire enhanced amount of compensation and submitted, the entire enhanced amount of compensation be awarded in favour of respondents No. 6 8s 7 as the appellant has now re-married. L£ v^ 10. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta for respondent No.3 supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation, which does not call for any interierence. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 12. True, the claimants pleaded the income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month, no cogent and reliable evidence was led to substantiate the above plea raised in the claim petition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the income pleaded by the claimants for the purpose of coraputation ofcompensation. 13. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly erred in takuig into consideration the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- only. The deceased was resident of village Sonpur, District Surguja and in the year 2003 could have easily earned Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per, annum even by working as unskilled labourer. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the income of deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. ^ :t.i ?- 14. After deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards personal expenses of deceased, the claimant's annual dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- 15. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 18 would be appropriate in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Venna (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 18 has been prescribed for the age group between 21 to 25 years. 16. By multiplying the claimant's annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation towards claimant's loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. 17. The appellant is further entitled for Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards IQSS of estate and thus the appellant would become entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,03,000/-, i.e., Rs.71,000/-, over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The appellant is also entitled for Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.71,000/-. ^o 19. Now, coming to question as to whether or not respondents No.6 & 7 are entitled for the entire enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.80,000/-, it is crystal clear, appellant/claim.ant lost her only bread earner whereas respondent No.6 Sopariram, father of deceased, is aged about only 45 years and was not dependent upon his son Sanjay. Further, the Tribunal, while apportioning the amount of compensation awarded by it, had already awarded 50% amount of compensation to respondents No.6 85 7. 20. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the appellant/claimant, i.e., widow of deceased - Sanjay is the only person, who is entitled for entire enhanced amount of compensation. Therefore, the prayer made by respondents No. 6 85 7 deserves to be and is hereby rejected and prayer of the appellant is allowed. 21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant, i.e., widow of deceased - Sanjay, is awarded a further sum of Rs.80,000/- including quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation. The award is modifled to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 22. Cross-objection/cross-appeal preferred by respondents No. 6 8s 7 is dismissed. ^ 23. The respondent No.S/United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time to deposit fhe aforesaid amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 24. No order as to costs. Sd/-- Chief-Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge fl i--.