,^>k- '/^ "^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCti CORAM: HON'BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR8 SUNIL KUSVIAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS/ CLASiVIANTS .A.(C) No. 1012 of 2008 The'Oriental Insurance Co. Through Branch Manager, Offlce Main Road, Korba (C.G.) Versus 1. Jaiandhar Sonkar S/o MishriSal Sonkar, Age 51 Yrs. RESPONDENTS/ 3. NON-APPLICANTS 4. Smt. Parvati Bai W/o Jalandhar Sonkar, Age 46 Yrs. Mukhtar Ahmed, S/o Subhan Ansari, Age 27 Yrs. Resident of Chama Basti, Kesalpur, District - Gadva, Jharkhand (Truck Driver) Vinod Kumar Agrawai, S/o S.N. Agravval, Through Tirupatl Road Carriers, Raigarh C.G. (Truck Owner) AppeaE Under Section 173 ofthe IViotor Vehlcles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawai, iearned counsel for the appeilant. ORDER gth (4tn August, 2008) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By aiiowing l.A. Nos. 2 & 4, the documents filed along with these appiications are taken on record. 2. Learned counse! for the appellant is heard on admission. 3. This is jnsurer's appeal against the award dated 26-11-2007, passed by the Second Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Korba, (for short 'the Tribunal'), passed in Claim CaseNo. 136/2007. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2, the unfortunate parents of deceased Shambhu Sonkar claimecl compensation of Rs.47,00,000/- for his death in the motor accident when his Motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicie - Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 13A/0755, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that their son Shambhu Sonkar was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by running a Hotel. 5. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle - Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the ciaimants on the piea that the motorcyclist himseif was negligent and as such was responsibie for the accident. The insurer of the offending vehicte took the further plea that the Truck was being piied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid driving licence. 6. The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted by the parties held that the claimants' son Shambhu Sonkar died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27- 12-2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehide - Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Orienta! .^y^\. t^B!IJ '<> Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the ctaimants. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting the usuai 1/3rd tov^ards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the appropriate multipiier, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12,000/-. By awarding further sums under other permissible heads, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of their son Shambhu Sonkar in the motor accldent. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- from the date of filing of the clalm petition till the date of actual payment. 8. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeiiant/jnsurance company submitted that the appellant/ Insurance Company, in this appeal is challenging oniy quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunat; the Tribunal granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appeilant/insurance Company to contest the claim on all available defences; the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum wit'nout any cogent evidence in that behalf; in awarding excessive amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants; and in awardlng interest at a higher rate of 9% per annum. \' ^^^%ty^w %r--^' .4"' 9. The clalmants pleaded that deceased Shambhu Sonkar used to eam Rs.8,000/- per rnonth by running a hotei. As the Tribunal did not find the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased reliable, his income was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. As deceased Shambhu Sonkar was aged about 25 years on the date ofthe accident he could have easily earned Rs.100/- per day even as an un-skilled labourer. We, therefore, do not find that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum Is on the higher side. 10. The tota! amount of compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunai to the ctaimants, who are unfortunate parents of deceased Shambhu Sonkar, when examined in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of MiiMcipal Comof'ation of GreatQr Bombav Vs. Laxman iver and Another, reported in |2003i 8 SCC 731, in which case too the ciaimants were the parents of the deceased and the Apex Court assessed the compensation payabie to the parents at Rs.3,60,000/- and after deducting 25% towards the contributory negiigence of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, we are satisfied, cannot be termed as excessive so as to warrant reduction in this appeaj flled at the behest of the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck. The award of interest by the Tribuna! @ 9% per annum also does not warrant any interference in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^. \ ^ Subbu 11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground for interference in the matter. 12. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge