IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA'FURE AT BILASPUR ' ‘ I ‘ CHHATTISGARH ' I, X LL) ' DiVision’ BeneM MISELLANEOUS APPEA LANO. — (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANT CLAIMANT , / /Smt Urmlla Bal Kosarlya W/o Late Dalendra Kumar Kosar1ya aged about r 21 years R/og- Vlllatge— Galntra Post — Ralkheda Tehs11 — Tllda Pollce Statlon- Kharora D1str1ct- Ralpur (C G ) £ VERSUS ‘ ” Roshan Lal Yadav S/o Santram Yadav aged about 22 years R/o-r Shankar Nagar SlmgagiDlstrlct Raipur (VC,G.) (Driven of Vehicle-Jeep bearing registration No ‘CG 04/ZD-9264) Vijay Kumar SaluJa S/o Rajendra Kumar Saluja R/o Azad Chowk Simga _ A , Dlstrlct - Raipur (C G) _ (Owner of Vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. CG 04/ZD-_9264) V ' y The %ESPONDENT_ ON-CL'AIMANTS ' National Insurance LCompany Lnnited Through Manager D1v1310nal I Office The" National v Insurance Company Llmited Bes1de of Lalganga L _ Complex, infront of Petrol Pump, G.E. Road,‘Raipur, Teh’sil & District — Raipur (C.G.) ‘ Jagdlsh Prasad Kosarla aged about 50 r years S/o Sadaram Kosar1ya \ years W/o Jagdish Prasad Kosar1ya Villagej Bllacll, Pollce ' 'StatiOn;-:Neora, ‘Distriet- Raipur(C.G’.), ‘ av i - "Srnt Basanti Bai Kosaria aged about 45 W ‘ Both g R/o? l??? OF 2006 I - t MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR , ' / VEHICLESACT,’19;8_8 r»; H, I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BASPUR DIVISION BENCH I i I CORAM: h HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV ,GUP A, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH HANDRAR, ‘ Misc. Appeal (c; No. 125 (m‘ zoos Appellant Ciaimant Smt. Urmi!a Bai Kosariya, w/o late Dalendra Kumalr Kosariya, aged about 21 yearsr r/o viilage Gaintra Post Raikheda, éTehsil Tilda? Ponc Station Kharora, District Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Roshan Lal Yadav, s/o Santra Yadav aged abbm 22 years Rl Shankar Nagart, Simga, d'istric Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicie Jeen bearin registration No. C.G. 041215-9264) _ Respondents Nm-ciaimants Vijay Kumar Saiuja, S/o Rajendra Kumar Saiuja, r/o Azad Chowk, Simga, district Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicle Jeep bearing regietration No. C.G. 04IZD-9264)‘ The National insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Divisionat Office, the National lnsurance Company Limited Beside of Lalganga Complex, 'infront of Petrol Pump, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur C.G. Jagdish Prasad Kosaria aged about 5D years, s/o Sadaram Kosariya. Smt. Basanti Bai Kosaria aged about 45 years, w/o Jagdish Prasad Kosariya Both rte Viilage Biladi, Police Statiorf“ Ne'ora, district Raipur C.G. IL KA J. é m o g t ‘ ’ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE MOTOR l VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, coun}sel forthe appeuant. Shri G.V.K. Rao, counsel for respendent No.3. L ‘ ORDER § ‘ (18m February, 2§§11) The following order of the Court .was passed by I Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Smt, Urmila Bai‘ Kosariya, unfortunate widow of deceased Dalendra Kuma‘r Kosariya is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, by the 8i“ Additional ' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Vide award dated 26.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.51l2004. 2) As against the compensation, of Rs.9,50,000l- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Dalendra Kumar Kosariya by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; for his death in the motor accident on 24.01 .2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,05,000/—las compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) . The unfortunate parents of deceased Dalendra Kumar Kosariya also filed a separate ciaim petition (Claim Case No.52i2004) claiming compensation of Rs.4,47,000/- for the x death of their son Dalendra‘Kumar Kosariya in the motor’ accident. La‘A ii 4) The Tribunal appears to have deb‘ided both the claim cases Le. Claim Case Nos. 51/2004 and 52/2004 by the impugned common award dated 26.04.2006 whereby compensation of Rs.3,05,000/— was apportioned between: the claimants of the two claim cases in the ratio of Rs.1‘,55/,OOO/- ito widow Smt. Urmita Bai 77 deceased. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the-entire evidence led \ before it held that deceased Dalendra fkumar Kosariya died on account of the injuries sustained by himi'in the motor accident on 24.01.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of’ the driver of the offending; vehicle Marshall deep bearing registration No.C.G.O4—ZD/9264: as the above offending vehicle Marshali Jeep, on the date~of the accident was insured with the National insurance Company Limitedand the Insurance Company could not establish any breach'of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. v V. 6) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award. theabove findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. V / 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,GOO/— per month and Rs.24,000/-‘ per annum. By deducting 1/3’d of Rs.24,‘000/— towards the personal expenses ef- the‘ ,‘ eceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at ‘Kosariya and Rs.75,000/— each to the inother and father of the d Rs.16,000l— per annum. By multiplying th annual dependency of Rs.16,000/— with the multiplier of l7, ‘he compensation was worked out to Rs.2,72,000/—. By aw)arding further sum of Rs.33,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,05,000/— as compensationto the widow and parents of deceased Daiendra Kumar Kosariya in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed paymentyof interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,05,000;’- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofxactual payment. 8) The Tribunal apportioned 'the above amount of compensation of Rsl3,05,000/- between the widow and parents of the deceased in the ratio of Rs.1 ,55,000/— and Rs.75,000/- each to the parents, respectively. . 9) Shri Shivendu Pandya, teamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,05,000/—‘ only. 10) Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and\ circumstances of the case. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, the claimants could not establish that the vehicle insured with the National insurance Company Limited was involved in the accident add the same is evident from the fact that in the First lnformation Report it it ih was mentioned that some unknown ) 1 vemcie has caused the acmdent resulting In the death of deceased Dalendra Kumar Kosanya 11) in a motor accident claim case; !what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the; facts and circumstances of the case, t It should neither beiv a meager amount ' of compensation nor a Bonanza 12)’ Now we shalt examine as to whether the compensation of Rs 3 05 000/— awarded by the Tribunal is Just and proper > compensation in the facts and Circumstances of the present case. 13) True, the c‘iaimant pleaded thatfher husband deceased Dalendra Kumar Kosariya used‘to earn Rs4 000/- per month as ' driver the evrdence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature _ We therefore do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant‘s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/- permonth and Rs.24,000/; per annum. ' ‘14) The claimant's dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3“ of the income of the' deceased towards his personal expenses _ 15) The multiplier of 17' selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, his widowand parents also cannot¢be foundrauitwiih'. ‘ , _ ~ ‘ ‘ ’ was A 18) The apportionment of the amouni of compensation by the Tribunal. between the appellant- Viiidow and respondents No. 4 and 5 — parents of the deceased, is not under challenge before us in this appeal. _ 1?) For the foregoing reasons, we dp not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awaréjed by the Tribunal. ’18) The. appeal filed . byethe appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefére‘, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ‘ subbu 19) No order as to costs. i a Sdl- Sd/— » E Rangilath Chandrakar Chief Justice ; '1 ’Judge