"^- v .";'w .^?:"'. &-. !., 'i~y% J •' 'A ''-;' . ?-.^ / J -i'f ..^ <. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (/'^D MANo. 92/2005 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS i&aSi ^, Smt. Archana Shrivastava &, others VERSUS K. Rajesh &, others _& MANo. 203/2005 Ramjilal Shrivastav 85 others VERSUS K. Rajesh 8s others Judgment for consideration Sd/- ~> N.K. Agrawa! 1| Judge Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta.CJ. a Sd/- Chief Justice Post for pronouncement on ' /07/2011 Sd/- Juage y- 07/2011 '•'-&•,'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS MANo. 92/2005 1. Smt. Archana Shrivastava Wd/o late Prashant Shrivastava, aged about 25 years, occupation house wife 2. Pratik Shrivastava, S/o. Late Prashant Shrivastava, aged about 4 years 3. Pratiksha Shrivastava, aged about 2 years Appellant No. 2 and 3 Minor throL Guardian Mother- appellant no. 1. All are resident of Namnakala, near Power Hous'e, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) VERSUS 1. K. Rajesh S/o K. Gautam, aged about not known, occupation owner of the vehicle R/o Jabadapara, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG)-OWNER 2. Patwardhan, S/o. Kanaklal aged about 29 years, Occupation Driver, R/o village Darrighat, Masturi,Distt. Bilaspur(CG)-DRIVER 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Branch in front of High Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)-INSURER Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellants. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No. 3. APPELLANTS MA No.203/2005 1 Ramjilal Shrivastav S/o Benilal Shrivastav, Aged about 56 years 2 Smt. Ushakiran Shrivastav W/o Shri Ramjilal Shrivastav, Aged about 4.8 years 3 Prateek Shrivastav, S/o Late Prashant Kumar Shrivatav, Aged about 5 years. 1 ... .ifeiiWBa (3 RESPONDENTS 4 Pratigya Shrivastav D/o Late Prashant Shrivastav, Aged about 2 years VERSUS 1 K. Rajesh S/o K. Gautan, aged unknown, occupation-owner of the vehicle, R/o Jabedapara, Sarkanda, PS Sarkanda, Tahsil 85 Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2 Patwardhan S/o Kanaklal, aged about 29 yrs, ocQupation-driver of vehicle, R/o' V^lage Darrighat, Masturi, Distt. Bil^'lpur (CG). M 3 The Oriental. In^&^-ance Co. Ltd. Board office, In fr%E|it of High Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bit^spur (CG) ^x- Present 1(7 y • • iti ' Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Qixit, counsel for the appellants. ', Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for the respdndent No. 3. Misc. Appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J AWARD (Passed on ^'/07/2011) Per N.K. Agarwal, J 1. Appellants in MA No. 92/05 are widow and children, and appellants in MA No. 203/05 are father, mother and children of deceased Prashant Kumar Shrivastava. They filed two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Acts claiming compensation for the death of deceased in motor accident dated 02.05.2004. The Tribunal disposed of both the claim applications and awarded Rs. 70,000/- in all along with interest @ 9 pereent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment and ^ apportioned above amount of conipensation among appellants in both the claim cases, therefore, both the claim petitions are being disposed ofby this common award. 2. On 02.05.2004, deceased Prashant Kumar Shrivastava was going to Ambikapur along with his friend Anil Kumar Agrawal by motorcycle being driven by deceased Prashant Kuniar Shrivastava. When they reached near Holicross School, Ambikapur, suddenly one Tata Mini Truck-709 bearing registration No. CG-10-ZB/2580 hit the motorcycle resulting in death of Prashant Kumar Shrivastava and Anil Kumar Agrawal in the said accident. • 3. Widow and children of deceased Prashant Kumar Shrivastva have preferred petition No. 52/04 under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,OOO/- for the death of deceased in the said accident. The parents and children of deceased have also filed claim petition No. 51/04. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led, held : above accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Truck; the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation on account of its failure to prove any breach of policy conditions and to prove defence taken in the written statement; awarded lump-sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- in all, to the claimants and apportioned the same among all claimants in both the claim cases. T'^ "v^// w 5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsels appearing for the appellants/claimants in both the cases, would submit: the Tribunal has erred in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 70,000/-only. They would further subm.it deceased was a Contractor and was also doing business of Screen Printing and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.S/Insurance Company would submit: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference. 7. In order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the amount of corapensation awarded by the Tribunal we have perused the record of the Tribunal. 8. True, claimants pleaded that the deceased Prashant Kumar Shrivastava used to earn Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- per month as Contractor and from Screen Printing business, no cogent and reliable evidence oral and/or docunientary was adduced/placed before the Tribunal to establish the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs. 5000/- to 6000/- per month, we therefore, do not find and infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that claimants have failed to prove the incorae of the deceased. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored, the deceased could have easily earned at least Rs. 24,000/- per annum in the facts and circuinstances of the case, therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in not assessing income of the deceased to the above extent and in not computing amount of compensation by applying multiplier method. 9. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 24, OOO/- per annum. 10. By deducting usual l/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the deceased as 28 years at the time of accident, total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 2,72,000/-. By adding Rs. 15,000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- each on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses), total amount of compensation would beRs. 2,87,000/-. 11. After deducting Rs. 70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the additional amount of compensation payable to the claim.ants works out to Rs. 2,17,000/-. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeals •' preferred by claimants are allowed in part. The claimants are now entitled for Rs. 2,87,000/- as compensation in place of Rs. 70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The additional amount of compensation of Rs. 2,17,000/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Out of enhanced amount of compensation, Smt. Archana Shrivastava i.e. widow of deceased Prashant Kumar Shrivastava shall get Rs. 1,00,000/-, minor children of deceased i.e. Pratik Shrivasfava and Ku. Pratiksha Shrivastava will get Rs. 50,000/- each and mother Smt. Ushakiran Shrivastava shall get Rs. 17,000/-. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 13. The respondent No. 3/0riental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. AgrawaS Judge Sahu