HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 389 of2008 APPELLANTS Claiinants Smt. Sharda Bai and others. Versus RESPONDENTS Non-applicants B. Appa Rao and others. AWARD For consideration z ^- -9-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta -^JL^ - Chief Justice ^^-9-2011 Post for pronouncement of Award: 2 3> -9-2011 Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge \; ..<-:w;t??s ->-, ,^ r'r"%,: V "5€^t "•!te;saac.y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 389 of 2008 APPELLANTS Clairaants before the Tribunal RESPONDENTS Non-applicants before the Tribunal 1. Smt. Sharda Bai, W/o late Shri Gopidas Manikpuri, Aged about 31 years, Occupation - Nothing (Dependent) 2. Siddhant Das, S/o late Shri Gopidas Manikpuri, Aged about 6 years, 3. Ku. Gautami, S/o Late Shri Gopidas Manikpuri, aged about 4 years Appellants no.2 and 3 through guardian Mother Smt. Sharda Bai. All are R/o Behind Ghandi Chwok, Titurdih, Durg. Tahsil and Distt. - Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. B. Appa Rao, S/o B. Paraiya, aged about 44 years, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Thana Bhodhghat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Driver of Truck No. C.G. 08 ZC - 0364) 2. Satweer Singh, S/o Jagar Singh, Aged about 10 years (Regd. owner of Truck No. C.G. 08 ZC - 0364) Minor guardian through Father Jagar Singh, S/o late Shri Trilok Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Thana Bhodhghat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Corapany Ltd. Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Policy No. 190505/31/05/03521 w.e.f. 21.09.05 to 20.09.06 and insured vehicle Truck No. C.G. 08 ZC- 0364 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQRVMIICLES ACT,1988 Corani: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 85 Hon. Shri N.K. Aganval, J PRESENT: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjay S, Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3, AWARD (Passed ona"? -9-2011) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide its award dated 24.12.2007 in Claim Case No.42/2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.13,98,068/- claimed by the unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased - Gopidas by filing clairn application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 30.082006, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,21,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. . The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due rash and negligent (ss"ss^;- M//^' ^ ^ i i^w-s^:^ driving by the driver of Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 08/ZC-0364; Gopidas, driver of driver of Scorpio bearing registration No.C.G.07/3456, died on account of injuries sustained by him. in the said accident; respondent No-3/the United India Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded Rs.4,21,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment against respondents. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred in determining the income of the deceased as 3000/- per month only and in awarding low amount of compensation. 5, On the other hand, Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - insurance company would support the ' impugned award and would submit: looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal rightly awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award irapugned. ,^ .-..-^.. "'y £'" ,,<'!" ';'-1 ^,. -^ ^^^lr-'^ 7. True, the claimants pleaded income of the deceased as Rs.5500/- per month but failed to substantiate the monthly income of the deceased by adducing cogent and clinching evidence in this regard. According to the appellants/claimants, owner of Scorpio bearing registration No.C.G.07/3456 is M.P.Thakur (A.W.2), who engaged deceased as its driver at a monthly salary of Rs.5500/-. Shri M.D.Thakur (A.W.2) admitted in his statement paragraph 5 that he was not the registered owner of the above vehicle; also stated the said vehicle Scorpio is owned by his joint fajnily; further admitted that he has no accounts regarding payment of salary and daily allowance. The Tribunal, looking to the every aspect of the matter, has assessed the salary of deceased driver as Rs.3000/- per month. 8. Considering overall circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion that salaiy of deceased was not Rs.5500/- but was Rs.3000/- per month only i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, after deducting l/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards personal expenses of deceased, assessed the claimants yearly loss of dependency as Rs.24,000/-. As per post-mortem report, age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. Taking into consideration the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17. Although the Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.), has prescribed the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 years to 35 years. By applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal was Rs.4,08,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 13.500/- on other heads and thus awarded total sum ofRs.4,21,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 9. The amount of compensation of Rs.4,21,500/- when examined in the context of above broad features of the case, we do not find any scope of enhanceinent in the amount of cbmpensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge \: