INTHE HQITBLEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.Glp M.A. (Cl NO.l'7.)J!sy../2007 MISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS VEHICLE^CT, 1988 (1) Dinesh Kumar Aged about 12 years S/o Gayaprasad Sahu ^^'" ...^ RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS (2) Dilharan Aged about 5 years S/o Gayaprasad Both minor through father Gayaprasad S/o Dasru Sahu, aged about 40 years Gayaprasad S/o Dasru Sahu Aged about 40 years Occupadon Kastkari All residents of Village Bhikhampur, P.S. Nandghat, Sub-Tahsil Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) (3) VERSUS l_ 1. Pundas Bharti S/o Netram Bhard Aged about 47 years Teacher Ss, Agriculturist Village Bordahi (Teacher-Primary Scbool-Katai), P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) Vedprakasb S/o Kehardas Bhaskar Aged about 22 years r' Driver, R/o Village Gandhiriwadih, P.S. Pathariya District Bilaspur (C.G.) fi?' r" ^ Present address Village Bordahi, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh District Durg (C.G.) 3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor Construction Trade State S.N.D.T. Crossing Plot No. 64 Law College Road Pune-411004, Maharashtra »- Claim in Appeal for enhanceruent of fhe award valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-, Claim before the Tribunal -Rs. 20,75,000/- Claim awarded by Tribunal -Rs. 1,77,000/- Claim in appeal -Rs. 3,00,000/- (20,75,000-1,77,000 =18,98,000/-), however restricting the claira up to 3,00,000/- in appeal) (Court fee afGxed Rs. 15/-) '•;&>,' Sf' ,f- § n 9 &^~ey^ B'a-"""l S HIOH COURT 0V CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR M.A. (Cj N0. 1060 OF 2007 APPELLANTS/ r'T.A 1^X1 Diiiesli Kuiuai' aiid oliiei's. Versus Puiiuas BIiarti ajid oiliers. NON-CLAI2SEANTS APPEAl, UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT, Sia»eBenca: Hon'ble Shri 0. Minhatuddia, J. Preseati Shri Sanjsy S, Agrawal, coi-insel for the appellants, Slu'i Vikrain Dlxit, counsel for respondents No. 1& 2. Noiie for rcsDondeut No.3. ORAL ORDER rpassed on 11th day ofJuly; 2011| This appeal has been fUeu under' Section 173 of tlie * Motor Veliicles Act (for short the Act'j agauist tiie impugiied award dated 31-07-2007 passed by uie Additional Motor Accident Claims Triotuial Beuietara, Distt'ict Durg (for short the Claims Tribunal) in Clain-i Case No. 18/2006 by flie appenants for erjliaiicement of coaipensation. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as projected by the clauiiaiits aie tliat Claii'aants No. 1 & 2 are tlie sons of tlie deceased Dhaiiwai'iiibai and Claiiiiaiit No.3 is the husbaiid of flie deceased. On 01-02-2006 at 5-QO P.M., the deceased Dhaiiwai'mbai was retui'nuig fl'om the fleld to her home. On ttie way, siie was dasueu uy tiie 'iTactor'-troitey ueai'uig regisu-ation No. C.G. 07-D/4139 aiid Trolley No.4140 uue to rash aud negUgent drivuig of u'lc driver of the sald U'actor, as a ~'n \7^ result of which she died on fhe spot. The. repoft of fhe incident was lodged in the Police Station Nandghat, agauist non-appUcant No.2 Vedprakash "ander Section 304-A of fhe I.P.C. and after investlgation, a charge-sheet has been llled. 3. The tappeuants/claluiants uclng legal heirs of the deceased tiad fileu a claLm petition iind.er Section 166 ol fue Act before the Claims Triounal claiming conipensation of Rs.20,75,OOC'/- ofl account of untmiely deafh of fhe deceased Dhariwarlnoal in a niotor accideiit, who is wtfe of appeUant No.3 Gayaprasad aiid nioflier of Clahuaiits No. 1 & 2, ffac sald offending vehicle Tractor attaclxed wifh a troUey was beiiig uriven on fhe date of accideiit on 01-02-2006, by respondent No. 2 Vedprakash and owned by respondent No. 1 Pundas wliich was iiisured at fhe relevant tkue wifh fhe Insurance T^T .^. r\ (jompany/ responaent fiio.a. 4. Learned Claims Tribuiial after givlng opporturiity of hearlng to the pai'ties, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- along with Interest @ 6% per aiinmn fTOm the date of application tUl its payment aad fasteriing fhe Uability upon fhe Insuraace Couipany/resporident No.3 jointly and severaUy witii owner aiid driver of fhe ofienduig vehicle i.e. respondents No. 1 & 2. IfO. 5. Even after revising of tlie Ust, when the case. is caUed out twice, no one appeared on behaif of respondent No.3/ InsLuaace CoBipany, desplte service ofnotice. _--•—-—-—— 6. I have heai'd leai'ned counsel for' flie pai'ties aiid perused the record of fhe Claii'ns Tribunal as also fhe impugaed awaid. 7. Slu'i Saiijay S. Agi'awal, leai'iied coiitisel for flie appeUants/ciauiiaiits iias contencteci uiat Uie aiuouiit ot' compensation awarded by tiic Claiiris Tiibuiial is shockuigly on lower' side which deserves to be substaiitially eruiaiiced. In this coiuiection, learned counsel for the appellaiits/claimants placed reUaiice on the judgment of the Division Bench of fhls Coui't iii llie uiaUer of Shiv Kumar and others v. Mcileshrsun and others, (passed ui Misc. Appeal No. 1505/1996 decided on 10-05-2006), reported in 2006 L.T.(CX3-j 96. He fui'ther contends that ftie monflily mcome of the deceased shoulu be taken as Rs.3,000/- but the learned Claims Tribuiial has assessed the arinual uicorne on notional basis as Rs. 15,000/- Le. Rs. 1250/ - per monfii. 8. Deceased is survived by her husband/appeUant No.3 Gayaprasad aiid two clilldren, appeuants/claimants No. 1 & 2 aged about 12 years and 5 years respectivefy on tlie date of uling of the clami petition. 9. The Division Bench of tliis High Court in the aforeinentioned judgment has held iii pai'a 4 as mider: "4. It is well setded tiiat the Tribunal or fliis Court need not be bound by fhe pleading law, particularly, wliile computuig just and reasonable compensation as conteaiplated under- the Act. The lias come to fi-urik loudly that la computuig tfae loss of dependency, (he Court caruiot take uito accouiit exploited wages wliich an einployer jnlght have paid to the deceased-eiuployee or wage-eamer. The accident had taken place on 5-4-1995. A man haviiig a farnily consistlng of m.other, wife, young chUdren having a shelter over liis head witli two square meals and soiae provisions for rest of the life could not have Uved without earnlng Rs. 100/- per- day or Rs. 3,000/- per monfh. Therefore, we fhiiik it is fau~ to take daUy wage of the deceased at Rs. lOO/- or Rs. 3,000/- per monfl-i. Out of tliis Rs. 3,000/-, we have to deduct one-fhu'd towai'ds personal expenses of tlie deceased. Thus, actual loss of dependency per rnonth woulu be Rs.2,000/-. The deceased was aged about 45 years on the date of accident and hls demise. Therefore, appropriate multiplier to be applied for assessing loss of dependency is 15. Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 2000 X 12 X 15)." 10. In the case before the High Court, fhe deceased Ram.adhar was fhe husband and the dependents/clalmants were his wUe and cliUdren. In that factual sltuation, fhls Court has assessed fhe kicome of the deceased as a male as Rs. 100/- per day. In the pi^sent case, fhe accident took pla.ee in tlie year 2006 and fiie deceased is a female. She is survived by her husband respondent No.3 Gayaprasad who is aged about 40 years and must be arouiid 45 years at present. He is able bodied niale pefson and niust be eaniing somettiuig for liis and liis two cliUdren's survival. There is always difference ia the wages of a male and female labom'er. As p such ttie uaUy wage of fhe deceased Snit. Dhanwaruioai can be assessed safely as Rs. 80/- per day. Her monthly incoiae would come to Rs. 2,400/-. After deductmg one-tliird towards personal and Uving expenses, fhe reuiainder would coine to Rs.1600/- wliich she must have been contributuig towards her family, therefore, monthly dependency would come to Rs. 1600/- per montli aiid axuiual dependency would come to Rs.19,200/-. At fhe tkae of fhe accident, tlie age of fhc deceased was 38 years as shown in the postmortem report wlzich has not been challenged by the opposlte parties. 11. Hoii'ble tlie Supi-eiue Courl ui tlie uiaLter of Sfcu-ta Venna. (Smt) dnd others us. Delhz Trcutsport Corporation cuiu Another, repurled ui AIR 2009 SC 3104, lias ideiilified a scale of multipuer to be applied for compuUng the loss of dependency. Looking to the age of the deceased which was 38 years, m.ultiplier of 15 wul be applicable. After- applyln^ mulUplier of 15, fhe loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,88,000/-. In addition to fhis, the appeUants/claimants are also entitled to amounts mider other conventional heads. TIie Tribuiial lias granted I^s.5000/- eacli Lo appeUaiiis No. 1 & 2 towards loss of love and affection wlilch appeai's to be coiTect. AppeUant No. 3 has been granted Rs.2,500/- for loss of consortiiim. wliich is defmitely on the lower side and shoiild be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Rs. 2,500/- for loss ofestate aiid Rs. '2,000/- towai-ds fuiieral expenses wluch are definitety on fhe lower side and are enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each. As such \ 'l the claunants are entitied to a total couipensation of Rs.3,13,000/- (Rupees Tlii-ee LaM-is Tliiileen Thousaiid Only) (Rs.2,88,000 + 25,000 = Rs.3,13,000) along with mterest 6% per aiinum froui the date of fiUng of fhe clami petition tUl flie payment is made. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to fhe above extent. Ofher conditions contained ui fhe award passed by ftie Tribunal shall reinam uiiaci. 12. In the result, the appeal is aUowed in part and the award passed by fhe learned Tribunal is modtGed and the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,13,000/ iiistead of Rs. 1,77,000/-. In addition, fhe claimaiits shall also be entitled to Interest @ 6% per annum from fhe date of filing ofthe claku petition tlll the payment is niade. 13. Respondents No. 1 & 3 jouitiy aiid sevei-ally Uable for tlie paynient of amount of coiupensation. Respondent No. 3 shall deposit fhe entire amount along with interest @ 6% per aruium fi'oin the date of fiUng of fhe claiui petition tUl the payment is luade wifhin. a period of two monflis of tfae receipt of copy of ttds order. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge K-.i