HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. M.A.tCL No.966 of 2007 AppeUants/Claimants : Smt. Goras Bai and another. Respondents Versus Ramsingh Saini and two others. ORDER Pronouncement of order '1t,.07.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \\ : 1, Nsi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.(C) No. 966 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Plaintifrfs 1. Smt. Goras Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Siddheshwar Sagar, aged about 60 years, R/o Nehru Nagar Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sunaina Soni, W/o Shri Shailendra Soni, 23 years, C/o Deep Band Party, Behind Maharani Hospital, Chandani Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ramsingh Saini, S/o Shri Prem Singh Saini, Aged about41 years, R/o Gui^umit Nagar, Indore (M.P.) 2. Smt, Kamaljeet Kaur, W/o Paramjeet Singh Kaur, R/o 13, Bramhpuri Colony, Indore (M.P.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through: Divisionat Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon f(, .07.2010) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribuhal (F.T.C.), Raipur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.05.2007 passed in Claim case No. 34/2006. 2. In this case, the claimants filed the claim petition s^eking compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the death of Ku. Supriya, aged 14 ^-: ..^*^1 / € \. ^ t»l^, years in motor accident took place on 14.01.2006. As against the said compensation sought by theclaimants, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20.000/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% from the date offiling ofthe claim petition on 04.4.2006 till the date of actual payment. 3. The deceased Supriya was the grand daughter of claimant No.1 and the sister of claimant No.2 - Sunaina Soni. 4. According to unfortunate claimants, the deceased Ku. Supriya along with her family members was returning from Turturia fair in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G.05 B 8301 on 14.01.2006 (for short 'Maruti Van'). When the said Maruti Van reached near Bhoring Chowk, Tumgaon, respondent No. 1, who was driving the truck bearing registration No.M.P.09 KC 1292 (henceforth 'the truck'), in a rash negligent manner and was coming from opposite direction, dashed the Maruti Van. Due to collision, the deceased as well as all the inmates travelling in the Maruti Van have died on the spot. The truck was owned by respondent No.2 andwas insured with respondent No.3. 5. It was also pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 14 years and was a student. 6. Before the Tribunal, since respondents No.1 & 2 did not contest the case, therefore, they were ex parte. The respondent No.3 - insurance company in its written statement denied the accident and also stated that claimants are married women, therefore, they are not dependents. It was also put forth by the insurance company that the incident took place due to head collision between the Maruti Van and the Truck; the insurance company of Maruti Van was not made as party, therefore, this case is not maintainable. It was also stated that in Maruti Van, there were number of passengers more than capacity, and therefore, violated the policy condition. It was also put forth by the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence on the date of accident. On these premises, the insurance company in this case urged that it is not responsible to pay compensation. 7. The learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that the deceased Ku. Supriya has died on the spot in the motor accident on'14.01.2006; the deceased Ku. Supriya died dye to the motor accident took place on 14.01.2006 by the rash and negligent'driving 3 of the driver of the offending truck and the truck was insured with the insurance company on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. As respondent No.3 has not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 9. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence assessed the notional incomeof the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and thus awarded lumpsum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- @ 7.5%. 10. Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding lumpsum amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. He further argued that the Tribunal ought to have taken notional income ofthe deceased - Ku.Supriya at Rs.36,0007- per annum; after deduction of 50% multiplier of 10 ought to have been used and on the basis compensation should have been calculated by the Tribunal. 11. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and no leniency in awarding higher compensation should be taken. He further argued that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 14 years, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- looking to the age of the deceased. He relied on Kaushalya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora & Ors., 2007 (4) Supreme 29. On these premises, learned counsel urged thatthis appeal should be dismissed. 12. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, it is clear that the present claimants have filed 6 separate appeals for the death of Chandra Kumar Sagar, 45 years (Sweeper), Smt. Chait Sagar, 40 years (housewife), Sandhya Sagar, 22 years (house lady), Supriya, 14 years (student), Suman Sagar, 15 years and Suraj Sagar, 22 years in one accident occurred on 14.01.2006. In the present case, Ku.Supriya was aged 14 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,20.000/- , -- - ^^ ^sm ."^^l ~ ,^- ^ss^ ^ 13. Considering all the relevant factors including broad features in this case, 1 am of the opinion, the learned Tribunal has noterred in awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- which is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any scope in this case to enhance the compensation. 15. Consequently, this appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge