APPELLANTS Non-Applicant No.3 Non-Applicant No.2 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Umabai, widow of late Shri Roopram Kanwar, (Adivasi), Aged about 25 years. Om Kumar Slo Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged aboUt 5 years (Minor), Through : Natural guardian Smt. Umabai Yamini, D/o Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged about 2 1/2 years (Minor), Through —- Natural guardian Smt. Umabai. Romesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged about 12 months (Minor) Through : Natural Guardian Smt. Umabai. Gangdeo Chandravanshi, S/o Shri Mahadeo Chandravanshi, Aged about 50 years. Sultana Bai, W/o Shri Gangdeo Chandravanshi, Aged about 46 years. The above named respondents/claimants are Resident of Village - Manikpur. Post- Ramatola, . t Tahsil~Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.j Rajendra Kumar Pathak, S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Pathak, Aged about 38 years. Constable No.349, Posted at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ‘ RESPONDENTSI Claimants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HONB’LE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A. No. 1117 of 2003 Non-applicant No.1 And; M.A.N 2 0.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 AELLANT Non-Applicant RESPONDENTS W\ ‘M.A. No. 194 of 2004 Rajendra Kumar Pathak,S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Pathak, aged about 38 years, Constable No.349, Posted at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.Gr) Versus 1. Uma bai, widow of late Shri Roopram Kanwar (S.T.), aged about 25 years. 2:.‘ Om Kumar S/o Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged about 5 years (Minor), Through : Natural guardian Smt. Umabai 3. Yamini, D/o Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged about 2 1/2 years (Minor), Through — Natural guardian Smt. Umabai. Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Roopram Kanwar, Aged about 12' months (Minor) Through : Guardian Smt. Umabai. Gangdeo Chandravanshi, S/o Shri Mahadeo Chandravanchi, about 50 years. Sultana Bai, W/o Shri Gangdeo Chandravanshi, Aged about years. The above respondents/claimants are Resident of Village — Manikpur, Ramatola, Tahsil—Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) Appeayance: Shri N.K. Agrawalg Dy. Advocate General for the State and Superintendent of Police. Shri Parag Kotecha, Counsel for the Claimants. Shri Anoop Majumdar, Counsel for the Driver. PP 3 A No 19412004 M.A.No.1117l2003 and M. . . %€‘r§ma GMENT 7/04 2008) Fouowing Judgment of the Court was deiiverec} by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. als have been med o Miscellaneous Appe (1) These tw 8 against the tor Vehides Act 198 the Fwst Addltiona! M in Claim Case 002 M.A. Noll 1 1712003 has been fite Section 173 of the Mo award dated 06.09.2003 passed by Rainandgaon ‘ ‘under otor Ctatms Tr'lbunat, Accident d by the 1E ereas M.A. No.194l2004 0 1;; . e offending vehicle, wh , A1, § ' er of the offending vehicle. A cross- been filed by the dnv nhancement has also been filed by the claim No.163l2 State/owner oi th ’ has ants in obiection for e MA. Nol1 1 17/2003 The brief facts are that the claimants, who are the parents of deceased ~ widow, children and filed death ensation of Rs 10 20 0 took place on 24/5/200 N0.M.P.03l2043 vehicle deceased was trav the r Manikpur They argarh, from ied where, he was r (2) Roopram Kanwar, r Vehicles Act 00I- on account of his 1 when the police in an accident, which in which, the a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Moto elling dashed against the protected wood of claiming comp bearing registration d by the Side of the road m village- he accrdent, the door oof of a house situate vehicle was opened and the deceased fell down and sustained y l pleaded that due to t or the to the Hospital at Dong uries He was taken eferred to Sector—9 i-lospital, Bhilai, where he d many m1 4 M.A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 on 04.06.2001 during the course of his treatment. They further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 28 years. He was earning Rs.30,000/— per annum from agriculture and Rs.1000/— per month from the Kirana Shop, therefore, they be awarded a sum of Rs.10,20,000/— as the amount of compensation on account of his death. (3) Non—applicant Nos.2 & 3 fried their joint written statement, whereas, non-applicant No.1 filed a separate written . statement, but they had pleaded almost similar facts. lt was contended by them that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself; therefore, they are not responsible to make payment of any compensation to the claimants. (4) Learned Claims Tribunal framed various issues in this case and after taking evidence of the parties recorded the findings that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the claimants were entitled to receive compensation in sum of Rs.3,13,500/.~. The Tribunal determined that the deceased was earning Rs.24,000/— per annum and‘after deducting 1/3“ towards his personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs.16,000/—. Holding the age of the deceased to be 28 years, a multiplier of 18 was used by the Tribunal and the total dependency was determined in sum of Rs.2,88,000L-. Over and above the said amount, Rs.17,500/— was awarded on account of 5 M.'A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 medical expenses during the treatment, Rs.1000l- was awarded as the expenses of Attendant for 10 days during which the deceased was admitted in the hospital, Rs.5000/— was awarded as loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses. lt is in this manner, a sum of Rs.3,13,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 18/6/2002 till its realization with a further stipulation that if the entire amount of compensation is not deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the award, then, on the remaining amount due after the said period, the interest shall be chargeable at the rate of 12% per annum. (5) Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned. Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants in,M.A. No.1117/2003 argued that the penal interest awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same be set aside. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Keshav Bahadur and others, (20042 2 Supreme Court Cases 370. Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant— driver, appearing in M.A. No.194l2004, argued that a perverse finding has been recorded regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offendingvehicle by hisappellant namely Rajendra Kumar Pathak (Driver), who was Gonstable in the Police Department. k ~ I M.A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 (6) On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the claimants opposed these arguments and argued that a Iow compensation has been awarded t by the Claims Tribunat. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claim Case. (8) So far as the arguments of Shri N.K. Agrawlalr regarding penal interest is concerned, the Apex Court held in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) that though Section 110-CC of‘the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the new Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right and in the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. The Apex Court said that once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express Or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section .1 10-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a discretion in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually 7 M.A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 amounts to imposition of penaity which is not statutoriiy envisaged and prescribed. (9) in view of the above dictum of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the penal interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. (10) As far as the arguments of Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the Driver, in relation to perverse finding about rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is concerned, AW-2 — Bhaiyaram has deposed in para 1 & 2 of his deposition that on the fateful day, he was also travelling in the pick— up van and when the van reached near the Kothar of one Ganesh Ram, it dashed against the projected wood of his Kothar, due to which, ‘ vthe front door of pick- up van was opened and deceased — Roopram Kanwar fell down from the pick- up van, received various injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to Dongargarh from where he was referred to Bhilai, where he died. The Tribunal on due appreciation found that his such evidence was intact and on the basis of such evidence of the eye-witness — Bhaiyaram (AW-2), it recordeda finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, due to which; the deceased received injuries an‘d he ultimately died in the hospital. The above dnding of the Tribunal does not appear to be perverse. The same is based on cogent b 8 M.A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 and reliable evidence and we do not find any scope for interference in such finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal; Therefore, we do not find ahy force in the arguments advanced by Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the driver, and the same cannot be accepted. x i (11) So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants about low compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, a, relying on the evidence of wife of the deceased i.e. Umabai (AW-1) as also the relevant revenue records of the agricultural land of their family i.e. Exhibits P114 and P/15, determined that the deceased was contributing to some extent in the agricultural works and he was also running a Kirana Shop and thereby, he was contributing an earning of Rs.24,000/- per annum. Out of this - amount, 1/3’” was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the annual dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs.16,000/-. As stated above, the deceased was aged about 28 years‘ and the Tribunal used the highest permissible multiplier of 18 in his case and the total loss of» dependency has been determined at Rs.2,88,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.17,500/— on account of m‘edical expenses during the treatment as per the documents Submitted by the claimants and has also awarded Rs.1000/- on account of expenses of attendant for 10 days during which the deceased was admitted in the hospital. Over and above the aforesaid amount. Rs.5000/- was awarded on account of loss of consortium and b 9 M.A.No.1117l2003 and M.A. No.194l2004 @ Rs.2000/— was awarded for funeral expenses and in total, Rs.3,13,500/- was awarded by the Tribuna! along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 18.6.2002 till its realization. ln our considered opinion, a just and proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case; we do not tind any scope for interference either in the amount of annual dependency or in the multiplier used by the Tribunal in this case. Therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants that a low compensation has been awarded cannot be accepted. (12) For the foregoing reasons, M.A. No.1117/2003, filed by the State and Superintendent of Police, is partly allowed. The clause of penal interest in the impugned award dated 06.09.2003 is set aside and rest of the award is condrmed as it is. However, M.A. No.194/2004, filed by the Driver —Rajendra Kumar Pathak and cross objection tiled by the claimants are dismissed. (13) No order as to costs. r‘ Sd. Sd/ Rajeev Gupta Sum'l Kumar Sin/w CHIEF JUSTICE . ~. ~ Judge shyna