^- yo HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 614 of2007 APPELLANTS Shantibai and others Versus RESPONDENTS Deviram Masih and others. AWARD For consideration l ^ -10-201 1 Hon?ble Shri Justice Rajeev Gupta J ^^y^^^ - Sd/- Judge |^ -10-2011 Sd/- ChiefJustice Post for pronouncement of Award: 15-10-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No.614 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RBSPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1 -.. 1. Shantibai, D/o Sonaru, age 24 years. 2. Malti Bai, D/o Late Sonaru, age 21 years 3. Mahangibai, D/o Late Sonaru, age 19 years, All R/o Village - Sedaya P.S. - Darobha Distt - Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Deviram Masih, S/o Sampat, age 40 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Near Girdhari Cykal stores, Jagdalpur, Distt - Bastar (C.G.) 2. Shiv Kumar Sethia, S/o Ramnath Sethia, age 28 year, R/o Nakapara, Tongpal, P.S. Tongpal, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Division Office, P.B.-51 Malbiya Nagar Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Coram: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. AWARD (Passedon |3 -10-2011) '\ ^ •^ •%^^ ^•' Per N.K. Aearwal, J. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bastar, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 15/2006 vide award dated 28.02.2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.8,21,550/- claimed by the claimants i.e. major daughters of deceased - Sohagdei by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for her death in the motor accident on 23.12.2005, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Sohagdei. 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04- t G/9346 by respondent No.l i.e. driver ofthe offending vehicle Truck; Sohagdei, who was travelling in the said Truck on the date of accident, died on account of injuries sustained by her in the said accident; respondent No.3 ~ United India Insurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensation , as respondent No.3 could not establish \ violation of policy conditions; awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation and -directed for its adjustment towards ^ amount ofRs.50,000/- awarded on 01.09.2006 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and paid to the appellants on 6.11.2006. 4. Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred ift holding the appellants being married daughters and are living separately, are not dependents of the deceased and thus has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 supported the award impugned and submitted: appellants are not dependents upon deceased Sohagdei, and therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. Shantibai (A.W.l), in her cross-examination paragraph 7, has clearly admitted that they are three sisters and all of them have got married and are nov^ living with their spouses \ separately. /.-'.c^ " ^--'^ \ ^'•^^6 ^-•:."fv¥'^''' ^ ^y 8. In the case of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) -v- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2007) 10 SCC 643, in almost similar case, in which, a married daughter not dependent on her father also living with her husband in her husband's house, the Supreme Court has found, is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation, as envisaged under Section 140 ofthe Act and held in paras 14 & 15 as under:- <C14. Section 165 ofthe Act also throws some light on the controversy. The Explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A. 15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 ofthe Act Therefore, even ifthere zs no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is a legal representatiue will be entitled to compensation, the quantum ofwhich shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to coste. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned amicus curiae." 9. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is crystal clear that the appellants being major daughters of the deceased aged about 24 years, 21 years and 19 years respectively and are \ living separately, are not dependents upon the deceased, and ;:\ ". , • r^ "'^'% \f-s./ -A^"' ".^ ;>^--^' »?!- therefore, they are entitled for only Rs.50,000/- as compensation, as envisaged under Section 140 ofthe Act. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any scope of enhanceraent of compensation in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. For the foregoing, the appeal being sans merit and substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge '\