kN 2^-1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1134 of 2007. 1. Smt. Johatri Bai, Wd/o Late Ramkishun Sahu, Aged 50 years. 2. Kumbhkaran Sahu, S/o Late Ramkishun Sahu, Aged 35 years, Both R/o Kanhera, Post Tekari, Thana and Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Amarjeet Singh, S/o B. Singh, Aged about 50 years, R/o Pachi para Durg (C.G.), Through - Mahendra Tour and Travels Pandri Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) [Driver of Bus bearing registration NO.C.G.04-E/0241] 2. Wasan Singh S/o Yoginder Singh, Through - Mahendra Tour and Travels Pandri Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) [Owner of Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 04-E/0241] 3. Kamalji Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Through—Mahendra Tour and Travels Pandri Raipur, District - Raipur, (C.G.) [Insurerof Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 04-E/0241] 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Kutchery Chowk, Madina ' Manzil, Raipur, C.G. [Insurance Owner of Bus Bearing registered no. C.G.-04-E/0241] ^ 2-S ^i^wia^- Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. Shri C.K. Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1,2&3. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (17th June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor AccidQnt Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.06.2007, passed in Claim Case No.85/2007. 2) Respondent No.4 - the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus has also filed cross- objections against the impugned award on the sole ground that the driving license ofthe driver ofthe Bus was invalid and fake license. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and major son of the deceased Ramkishun Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 25.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.54,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. v 4) The Tribunal dn a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ramkishun Sahu died on account of the 7^ injuries sustainedby him in the motor accident on 25.02.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. C.G.- 04E/0241; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd ofRs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total.sum of Rs.54,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ramkishun Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.54,500/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low comp^nsation of Rs.54,500/- only. /^"""^ '^"••. 4 2--7 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the insurer of the Bus liable to pay compensation to the claimants as the driving license of the driver of the Bus was a fake license. 8) Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No,1, 2 and 3 also supported the award. 9) So far as the cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus is concerned, the only ground pressed into service is that the driving license of the driver of the Bus Was a fake license as reported by the Investigator of the Insurance Company in his report. Admittedly, no witness was examined from the R.T.O. to establish that the driving license of the driver of the Bus produced before the Tribunal was a fake license-. In our opinion, mere report of the Investigator of the Insurance Company by itself is not sufficient to establish that the driving licenseof the driver of the Bus was a fake license. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the cross-objections filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. The cross-objections filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.54,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present dase. 1 I IJ ';%.-. '%-'"y ^^^^^ ^ 11) Deceased Ramkishun Sahu was shown to be 60 years of age in his postmortem report. The claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month as Carpenter. The claimants are his widow and major son, aged about 35 years. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of'the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though, the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the multiplier of 5 for the age group between 60 - 65 years and of 8 for the age group between 55 - 60 years, the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 9 for the age group between 56 - 60 years and of 7 forthe age group between 61 - 65 years. 12) The compensation of Rs.54,500/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentione.d broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 13) 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.50,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.54,500/- awarded by the Tribunal as just an^ proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. ^ subbu 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.54,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15) Respondent No.4 the Oriental Insurance Company'Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.50,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) The cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent No.4 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Vehicle Bus, fail and are hereby dismissed. 17L No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 2?1 m