m- ii m APPEI-LANTS ^y' :'^^", •;I;N;.^tif,^;iG^^.OiU^T»^FflCM;l^^^^ %^^:1-^SI>UR^C.G:^|'^':^:'1^^^ M.Al'fcl^ci'II^^^ Smt. B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Chamra ;|^ Ralm^^^^^^^^^ , mentione^ as D/o.^ about; 52 ye^^F^ - mentioriedi as 30 years) Bhagwandjn Salame,g^ S^ Late Ctiarrira Ram, agetl|ab>put 30 years Neelkanfh 1 Salam^, S^ Chamra Ram, aged ibout^^^^^^^^2 'y'e^.FS,'l,^;:l..:.,.l,':'.,:,lr1,..^ ATI <:aste-( Katulwahi, Ambagarh Rajnandgaon porKj^ R/o.^;Village ,;Ta;Msl.j'|.;:-:%8ttJ.^P!t:S.:'l: Chpwki^ Djstricf ^C&.N)^.!^^^^^^^^^^^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS :^ ; i 1 ^ ^. G'rdh^ri, S/o.^^^^^^ ^ aged ab©u{t 30 lyear^^ Vill^ge^ Haroktia Payali^^ Tahsil t Amba District Rajnandgaorv^C.^^ Ku^jna}^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R/o. Viltage BhaTnr ol^a^ KaudTkasa/ l P.S. 'arvd' ^T'eihs Ambagarh j Chbwkt^^^^ ^ Rajnanygaon (C.G.) Th e U, ni ted; I n d ia .In syra nce Company Uimrted/ L Divisian^ O^flce Krisl^na Corri^! harj Chowk/jRaJpur CC.G.) Througti : iBrainch ^ United; f India i CQmpanybimited; Kam.th iLi^n^^^ Rajn a n d g a on { C,G.) v ; CLAIM BEFOREtHETRI&UNAL AWARDAMOUNT VALUATIONOFTHEAPPEAi- •Rs,:l;Q,lS^ ^SiSW Xs.Ql,41.|^|G(Qi-||^m ,RS,03,©IQ,OSO|^g|g ^K ••^•^ SM^ :« fcs^rrlbr^::::: -.7 v^"' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL ll/S. 173 OF THE NOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^ ^' (( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 425 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Smt. Binda Bai & others VERSUS Girdhari & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.07.2011) 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the award dated 16.11.2007, passed by the Ist Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') in daim case No. 48/2006. 2. As against Rs. 10,35,000/- claimed by unfortunate widow and major sons of deceased Chamra Ram as compensation for the death of deceased jn the motor accident by filing appijcation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act'), the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 1,41 ,500/- along with jnterest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG-07-D-5771 and Trolley bearing registration No. CG-07-D-5772; insurance company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as respondent/ ^ 8. insurance company fajled to prove any violation of policy conditions; assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1 500/- per annum; looking to the age of deceased as 55 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 11, and awarded Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 9500/- on other heads and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 1,41,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till its actual payment. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants would submit: the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and thus, the Tribunal has erred jn awarding low amount of compensation. On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company supported the award impugned and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference. 1 have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned. As per para 3 of statement of Bhagwandeen (AW-1), deceased wasworking as a Mason, in para 7 of his statement, he has stated that labourers used to earn Rs. 25-30 per day in the village. The fact that deceased was working as a Mason in the village was not controverted by the respondents. True, as per statement of Bhagwandeen, labourers used to earn Rs. 25-30 per day, but certainly Mason would get more than Rs. ^" ,^r' i 'm^. -€) 1 ^^-^y' ^ ^ 25-30 per day. In any way, the fact that a person can earn at least Rs. 2000/- per month even by working as unskilled labour cannot be ignored. 9. Therefore, by taking into consjderation appellants' monthly income as Rs. 2000/- i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of deceased, the ciaimants' annual dependency would be Rs. 16,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 11, the amount of compensation would worked out to Rs. 1,76,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- each on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate), and thus the claimants are entitled for total sum of Rs. 1,91,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,41,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,41,5007- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,91 ,000/-. The above amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till "rts actual payment. Rest ofthe conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 11. The insurance company is granted three months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation (i.e. Rs. 49,500/-) along wjth interest before the concerned Tribunal. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge