w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No.907 of 2005 Appellants 1 Oriainal Claimants Respondents Original Non- applicants Dharmendra Harsukhlal Kothari, Age 38 years Mitesh Harsukhlal Kothari, Age 36 years Chetan Harsukhlal Kothari, Age 31 years M/s Paras Trading Co Near City Railway Booking Office Station Road, Raipur (CG) VERSUS Ramjivandas Shastry, S/o Panchamdas Shastry, Village - Kirwai, Damakheda, Tah Simga, Distt Raipur, Owner of Tata Sumo CarNo.CG-04ZD/6108 Santosh Sharma, S/o Late Amrit Sharma, C/o M/s Pappu Pan Centre, Mandi Gate Pandri, Raipur (CG) Co-owner of Tata Sumo Car No.CG- 04ZD/6108 Dilesh Sahu, S/o Jhaggad Das Sahu, Village & Post: GOMA, Thana - Suhela, Tah : Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur (CG) Driver of Tata Sumo CarNo.CG-04ZD/6108 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., llnd Floor, RDA Building, Bajrang Market, Raipur (CG) Insurer ofTata Sumo CG-04 ZD/6108 M/s Navbharat Fuse Company Ltd., thorough Navbharat Udyog Bhawan, hnr r. Ring Road No.1, New Rly Crossing, Raipur (CG) Owner of Tata 1612 Explosive Van CG-04-ZC/7739 6 Sudama Singh Rajput, R/o Bel Pahad, Thana - Bel Pahad, Distt Jharsukhda (Orissa) Licence N0.5598/BJPF/87 (Driver of the truck) 7 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 2nd Floor, Mobin Mahal, GE Road, Raipur (CG) Insurer of Truck No.CG-04-ZC-7739. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1,2,3 and 6 though served. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Dasarath Prajapati, counsel for respondent No.5. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.7. ORDER (16th June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The major sons of deceased Harsukhlal Kothari are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.04.2005, passed in ClaimCase No. 14/2004. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.6,46,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, major sons of deceased Harsukhlal Kothari by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for ^-^4^ "'^ % ^^;^ €^' his death in the motor accident on 17.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 held that the claimants' father Harsukhlal Kothari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG 04 ZC/7739; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering that deceased Harsukhlal Kothari was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident; all the three claimants are his major sons, having their own independent income and as such were not at all dependent on the deceased, awarded a total sum of Rs.62,000/- inclusive of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as compensation to the claimants for the death of their father Harsukhlal Kothari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation ^-^^ •7 ^,.,- . i ;A ''-S%S, ^ ^. "^J/ ^^^ ^-' ^-^.^ ^^'•' ^' of Rs.62,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellants/ claimantsbeing major sons of the deceased were not at all dependent on the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.62,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.7, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants were having their own independent income, the compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Dasarth Prajapati, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the owner ofthe offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Tata Sumo, in which the deceased was travelling, also supported the award. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Deceased Harsukhlal Kothari was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident. The claimants' plea that he used to earn .^-^. ^. ? '•<.'• • - * { \ '.^ ;". ^Y ' ': ^^/ Rs.4,000/- per month is negatived from their own documents including the copy of the income-tax returns produced by the claimants before the Tribunal wherein the income of the deceased from the salary in one year has been shown to be Rs.24,000/- and for the other years Rs.32,000/-. Claimant Dharmendra appearing as AW-1 before the Tribunal admitted that all the claimants are having their own independent income. It is a different matter that he has also stated that their father also used to contribute from his income to common expenses in the family. 12) Be that as it may, the fact remains that the claimants have lost their father in the motor accident and even if the claimants may not be wholly dependent on the income of the deceased, it cannot be denied that the deceased being the head of the family was contributing towards family expenses to some extent. 13) The compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features pf the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 14) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the age of the deceased and the claimants, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make thecompensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^y ~-^^^ \\ ^ A: \^^^...^ 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16) Respondent No.7 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N- K- Agarwal Judge subbu