^5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.611/2006 DB: HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J^ HON»BLESHM RAJB8HWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. APPBLLANTS Claimants Sint. Namita Verma, wd/o Punaram Verma, aged 25 years. Sagar Verma, s/o Punaram Verma, aged about 5 years Ku. Anjall @ Ranieshwari, aged about 1 year Bhagirafhi Venna, s/o late Bodhiram Verma, aged 60 years Smt Fulbati, w/o Bhagirafhi Venna, aged about 57 years, On behalf of fhe iniaor appellaats No.2 aad 3 inother Sznt Naniita Venna. Pernianent Address viUage Jhipaa P.0. Suhela, Distorict Raipur(CG). Present Address viUage Mohgaon, P.0. Champa, P.S. Neora, District Raipur(CG) Versus RESPONDBNTS Non-Applicants Shri Saatosh Kumar Yadav^ s/o Samaru Yadav R/o Isinile Ward Bhatapara(Near Babulal theater) PO & PS Bhatapara, Tah. & District Raipur(CG) Pratap Singh Thakur, S/o Kodu Siagh Thakur, village & Post Lawaabaa, Tahsil & P.S. Balodabazar, Disti-ict Raipur(CG) ^^*^^^^ €f^ i '^\ ^"N^ ":%3^ MANo.611/2006 3, The Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. Thr, Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insuraace Co, Ltd., Kutcheri Chowk, JaU Road, Raipiir, District Raipur(CG) MISC. APPBAL U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLE ACT Appearance: Shri S.C.Vercaa, counsel for fhe appeUaats. Shri Vivek Rafhore, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2« ORAL ORDER (13.08.2009) The foUowing order of fhe Court was passed by Sunil Kunwir iSinfca, «7. Learaed counsel for fhe pardes are heard on M.(C.)RNo.796/2006, which is an. application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration of the submissions made by learaed counsel for the pardes, we are satisfied fhat fhe appeUaats have sufficienfly explabied fhe delay, which has been caused ia fiUng fhis appeal. Accordingly, M.(C.)P.No.796/2006 is aUowed and the delay ia filing fhe appeal is hereby condoned. Leanaed counsel for fhe parties are heard on adraission. The appeUaats/claiaiaats have filed fhis appeal for enhaacemeut of the amount of compensation, awarded in Clauii Case No.60/2004, by fhe 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipurvide award dated 27.7.2005. The appellaats/clamiaats are the widow, minor children aad parents of fhe deceased -Punaram Verma, who died ia tihe motor accident on 14,6.2004. The clainiaats filed a petition under Section 166 of fh.e Motor Vehicles Act, clamiing coinpensation of Rs.17,88,000/-, They pleaded fhat fh.e deceased was workiag as a ^^T^. /^^ ^ 1J ,-ft7' ^€ MANo.611/2006 Superyisor ia Grasiai Ceinent aad was earadng Rs.6,713/- per nionfh.. A perusal ofpara 20 offhe ioipugned award would show fhat a witaess froni fhe eniployer side has been examuied along with relevant docuinents, who deposed fhat fhe deceased was beiag paid his reuixineratlon on fhe basis of duties performed by him. He further deposed that fhe deceased had received Rs.5,937/- in the month ofJaauaiy, 2004; Rs.5,645/- ia the inonfh ofFebruaiy, 2004; Rs.6,050/- in the month ofMarch, 2004; Rs.5,707/- in the month ofApril 2004; Rs.5,607/- in the month of May, 2004 aad Rs.1,960/- m fhe monfh ofJune, 2004. He had also produced the register, showiag the above stateraent vide Ex, P/9. The tribunal assessed the inonfhly iacoiae of fhe deceased as Rs,5,500/-. By deducting Rs.1,833/- towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, the monfhly dependency was worked out to Rs.3,367/- aad fhe aanual dependency as Rs.44,004/-, By applyiiig the niultipUer of 18, fhe coinpensation was worked out to Rs.7,92,072/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.15,000/- imder ofher heads, fhe total amount of conipensation was worked out to Rs.8,07,072/-. The tribunal also awarded iaterest @ 6% p.a. fi^m the date of fiUng of the claiai petition tiU its reaUzation. This aaiount was directed to be recovered froiui fhe Insuraace Corapaay/respondent No.3, Shri S.C.Venaa, leanied counsel appeanng on behalfof the appeUants argues fhat the iacorae has not been properly assessed. We do not fiLad aay force ia such arguinent advanced by leamed counsel for fhe appeUaats. It appears that fhe tribunal has takeu out fhe average of fhe iacoine of above nionfhs aad has assessed fhe inonfhly incoine ofthe deceased at Rs.5,500/-. The niode adopted by fhe tnbuual for assessing fhe inonfhly iacouie of ftie deceased cannot be said tobe faully. Deduction of l/3rd aad multipUer of 18 also appear to be reasonable. MANo.611/2006 The law ia relation to awardiag conipensation in accident cases is weU setUed. Under fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obUgation to award "just aad reasonable" coinpensation to the genuiae clamian.ts after determining fhe factuni of accident as also fhe factum. of rash aad negUgent act on the part of driver of fhe oflTendiag vehicle. It has to be borae ia niuid fhat fhe coinpeusation is not expected to be wiadfall for the victmi. The statutory provisions clearly cominiuucate that the conipensation niust be just aad it caanot be a bonaiiza. The courts aad tdbunals have a duty to weigh fhe various factors and quaatify the aniount of comipensation, which should be just and which would depend upon fhe particular facts aad circumstaiices, aad attendiag pecullar or special features, if aiiy. Every inethod or mode adopted for assessmg compensation has to be considered in fhe background of "jusf coinpensation which is the pivotal consideration aad requires judicious approach. The expression "justw denotes equitability, famiess, reasonableness aad non- arbitrariness. Please see StcKte of flarsana and cinother -Vs- JasMr Kcw.r and others {2003i 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello fMrs.) and others -vs- Mahctrcishtra Stcrte JRocad Transport Corporatton and anothcr. (1999) 1 SCC 90. For fhe reasons stated above, we do not fiad aiiy scope for enhancement of the com.pensation awarded to the appeUaats/ claiinaats for the deafh of fhe deceased-Punaraai Venna ia fhe inotor accident. The appeal has no mierits. The same deserves to be aad is accordiagly disniissed at fhie niotion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge sunita