r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. M.A.tC). No.960 of 2007 Appellants/Claimants : Smt. Goras Bai and another. Respondents Versus Ramsingh Saini and two others'. ORDER Pronouncement of order : 1^.07.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.(C) No. 960 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Smt. Goras Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Siddheshwar Sagar, aged about 60 years, R/o Nehru Nagar Kalibadi^Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sunaina Soni, W/o Shri Shailendra Soni, 23 years, C/o Deep Band Party, Behind Maharani Hospital, Chandani Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Ramsingh Saini, S/o Shri Prem Singh Saini, Aged about41 years, R/o Gurumit Nagar, Indore (M.P.) 2. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, W/o Paramjeet Singh Kaur, R/o 13, Bramhpuri Colony, Indore (M.P.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEQUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT RESPONDENTS Plaintifrfs Appearance: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counselfor respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon ^ .07.2010) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.05.2007 passedin Claim case No. 32/2006. '^ ^^-'^^ '^ 1 ••!):^.;?» '-•>—-""..^ 2. In this case, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,0007- for the death of Chandra Kumar Sagar in motor accident took place on 14.01.2006. As against the said compensation sought by the claimants, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition on 3.4.2006 till the date of actual payment. 3. The deceased Chandra Kumar Sagar was the son of claimant No.1 and the father of claimant No.2 - Sunaina Soni. 4. According to unfortunate claimants, the deceased Chandra Kumar Sagar along with his family members was returning from Turturia fair in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G.05 B 8301 on 14.01.2006 (for short 'Maruti Van'). When the said Maruti Van reached near Bhoring Chowk, Tumgaon, respondent No. 1, who was driving the truck bearing registration No.M.P.09 KC 1202 (henceforth 'the truck'), in a rash negligent manner and was coming wrong side from opposite direction, dashed the Maruti Van. Due to collision, the deceased as well as all the inmates travelling in the Maruti Van have died on the spot. The truck was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3. 5. It was also pleaded that the age o.f the deceased at the time of accident is 45 years and was earning Rs.5,328/- per month from his occupation ofSweeper in Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 6. Before the Tribunal, since respondents No.1 & 2 did not contest the case, therefore, they were ex parte. The respondent No.3 - insurance company in its written statement denied the accident and also stated that claimants are married women, therefore, they are not dependents. It was also put forth by the insurance company that the incident took place due to head collision between the Maruti Van and the Truck; the insurance company of Maruti Van was not made as party, therefore, this case is not maintainable. It was also stated that in Maruti Van, there were number of passengers more ,than capacity, and therefore, violated the policy condition. It was al'so put forth by the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence on the date of accident. Ori these ^- '. ''^ I f / ^^ premises, the insurance company in this case urged that it/is not responsible to pay compensation. 7. The learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that the deceased Chandra Kumar Sagar has died on the spot in the motor accident on 14.01.2006; the deceased Chandra Kumar Sagar died due to the motor accident took place on 14.01.2006 by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and the truck was insured with the insurance company on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. As respondent No.3 has not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 8. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence that the deceased was working as Sweeper in Municipal Corporation, Raipur and ysed to earn Rs.5,328/- per month in that capacity has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,328/- per month and Rs.63,936/- per annum. After observing that the age of claimant No.1 is 60 years and that of claimant No.2 is 23 years, the Tribunal deducted 30% from the annual income of the deceased towards personal expenses and used multipiier of 13. After assessing the total dependency of the- claimants, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,348/-. In addition to this, the Tribunat also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-under other heads. Thus, the total compensation was worked out by the Tribunal is Rs.2,74,348/- and rounded of the same at Rs.2,75,000/-. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- @ 7.5%. 9. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, tearned counsel for the insurance company argued that the dependency should be at 50% of the income of the deceased, to which, Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has no objection. 10. The next argument of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company is that the multiplier should be 9 looking to the age of ^ ^ •^ftl. 1 "''^^ s ^ T\ T K appellanVmother whereas Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the multiplier should be 10. 11. After perusal of the record and the award, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the dependency at 30% and in using multiplier of13. 12. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the aboye mentioned broad features of thecase, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The appeal filed bythe appellants/claimants is allowed in part:. The appellants/claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.2,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.51,0007- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \{