-v?>^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 926/2006 1 Appellant Gurucharan Singh Versus RESPONDENTS Komal Ram and others. ORDER POSTON C^ Januarv, 2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^/Ot/2011 s ,y^-a^v ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.No.926of2006 APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT) RESPONDENTS APPLICANT ,< Gurucharan Singh, S/o Ambar Singh, Aged about 50 years, R/o Diwanpara, Tah & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Komal Ram S/o Budhdu Skhu, aged about 31 years, R/o Sonesarar, P.0. Karamtala, P.S. Lalbagh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dashoda Bai, Ws/o Komal Ram Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o Sonesarar, P.0. Karamtala, P.S. Lalbagh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dewaru Ram Sahu, S/o Hinsa Ram Sahu, aged about 37 years, R/o Diwanpara, Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Mesors Bhandari Construction, Pro. Jitendra Bhandari, Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Anand Shukla,counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. None for respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER (Passedon^ .01.2011) This is an appeal by the owner against the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 34/2004 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,52,000/- as total compensation to the respondents No. 1 & 2 /claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on fateful day of 09.05.2003 at about 12.00 noon, Bhajan Lal, a minor aged about 10 years and son of the claimants / respondents No. 1 & 2 was waiting for Tempo for going to ..:^ •^^ '"^s^ ^ ^^^ village Pendi and was standing at the edge of the road alongwith his grandmother. At the same time, respondent No.3 was driving the vehicle Road Roller in a rash and negligent manner and due to his rash and negligent driving he dashed Bhajanlal, as a result ofwhich, he died on the spot. 3. On account of death of their son, the claimants preferred a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- on various heads. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.4 did not file any written statement; therefore, he was declared ex parte. By filing written statement, the respondent No.3 denied all the averments made in the claim petition. 4. AII the parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal after affording opportunity of hearing, perusal of documents and evidence adduced by the parties, held that the respondent No.3, driver of Road Roller was negligent and due to his negligence, the death of Bhajanlal has taken place and awarded Rs. 1,52,0007- as total compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondents to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that t|ie driver of Road Roller was not negligent since he was driving the vehicle at the speed of 7 to 10 km. per hour, therefore, it cannot be said that driver was driving the vehicle (road roller) in a rash and negligent manner. It was further argued that work of road construction was going on and that particular place was prevented by putting two red flags so that nobody could enter the place of the work. He atso argued that driver of the road roller cannot see the front side because of the front wheel of the road roller, and therefore, he was not negligent. Lastly, he argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it should be reduced looking to the age of the child. He placed reliance in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others, 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) in support ofthe arguments. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 supported the impugned order and argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly found the driver of road rolter to be negligent. He also argued that ,^'^-%. /''"'•1"^ \. on one side of the road there was one Public Water Outlet and pedestrians used to come and have some water from that outlet, therefore, the driver of Road Roller should be careful and cautious to drive. On appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded and the appeal be dismissed. He placed reliance in the matter of Santosh Rani v. Ranjit Singh and others, 2008 ACJ 1405. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record including impugned order ofthe Tribunal. 8. A perusal of evidence available on record shows that on one side of the road, one Public Water Outlet is situated where people and passersby used to take water and on the other side work of road construction was going on, which is also evident from the evidence of Driver of road roller ~ Dewaru N.A.W.1, who, in his cross-examination, has admitted thatwork of road construction was going on prior to date of accident and there is also one Public Water Outlet situated on the one side of road where people and passersby as also workers of road construction used to have water. At the time of accident, he was driving the road roller and while he was driving such, one boy, aged about 9 years, was seen running towards Public Water Outlet, as such, the incident took place and Bhajanlal came into clutches of road roller and died instantaneously whereas Saroj Bai N.A.W.2 has stated that she did not witness the incident. A perusal of evidence of the driver of road roller shows that he was negligent whereas he should have been cautious because and should have applied his mind that there is one Public Water Outlet situated on the one side of the road where people and passersby used to come to take their water. It has also come in the evidence of the driver - Dewaru that while operating the road roller he was watching back side of the road meaning thereby he was negligent. When he was driving the road roller he should have viewed from front portion and not from back portion, but he did not do so, therefore, Dewaru N.A.W.1 / driver ofthe road roller was wholly negligent in causing accident in which Bhajanlal lost his life. In this view of the matter, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no force. ^f^-F*^ /a^-. 9. So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, no doubt the learned Tribunal has, after appreciating the evidence available on record, considering the age of the boy as 9 years at the time of accident and also the factum of loss of life at a tender age, contribution to his family and mental agony suffered by the claimants, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at 15,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the notional income would remain at Rs.10,000/- and after applying multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was worked out by the Tribunal at Rs.1,40,000/-. By adding Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked out by the Tribunal is Rs.1,52,000/- which the claimants are entitled for the death of their son namely Bhajanlal. In the case of Santosh Rani v. Ranjit Singh and others (supra) while considering the award of Rs.50,000/- on no fault liability in the case of death of Pankaj Bansal, a 13 years old boy, in the motor accident, to be meager, the Apex Court awarded a lump sum compensation upto Rs.2,50,000/-. In the present case, after appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased and then only awarded Rs.1,52,000/-. 10. Having considered evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Bhajanlal in the motor accident is just and reasonable compensation and the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding such amount as compensation to the claimants. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to costs. —-—-- Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge