n "WTT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BiLASP?JR CORAIVI: Hon'bleShri RajeevGueta, CJ. & Hon'bIeShri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. "fe MJsc.ADDealNo. 1097 of 2005 Smt. Savjta Bai & others Vs. ^'. Vinod Kumar Sahy & others (And connected M.A. No. 306 of 2006) JUDGMENT For considgration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 5 <£^^yl<^-^—' Sd/- ChiefJustice ^ A. . Post fgr Judgment :^//07/2009 _/--^.-------- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /'.'^^^yse'^--^.. '^ ^ 'II^ j '^ ^<.,^ ^a&^'" A?<. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR C CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Misc.ADpeaI No. 1097 of 2005 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Savita Bai widow of Aish Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years 2. Smt. Tilmati Bai W/o Nathuram Sahu, aged about 52 years 3. Nathuram S/o Jagatram, aged about 55years i 4. Parwati aged aboutlO years 5. Ku. Jankiaged aboutSyears 6. Deendayal aged about 6 years 7. Ku. Thanmati aged about 4 years Appellant No. 4 to 7 are son and daughter ofAish Kumar Sahu, minor, through mother Smt. Savita Bai Widow of Aish Kumar Sahu, All are R/o village SalheGhori, P.S. & Tah. Lormi, DJstrict Bijaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Sahu,S/o P.R. Sahu, aged aboyt 34 years, Presently vehicle driver Dumpher No. CG 10 ZB-1476, R/o Village hutal Kundi, P.S. Pandariya.DistrJctKabeerdham 2. Balram Yadav, aged about 45 years, President, vehicle owner Dumpher No. CG-10 ZB-1476, R/o Kanjheta, Rost Kolegaon, P.S. & Tah. Randariya, t DJs.trict Kabeerdham 3. National Insurance Company Limited B-1, Taha Complex, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bil9Spur(C.G.) Misc. Appeals No. 1097 of2005 & 306 of2006 And Misc. Appeal No. 306 of 2006 APPELLANT National Insurance Company Ltd., B- 1 Taha Gomp;jx, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bila?(3yr(C;G.)| Versus RESPQNDENTS 1. VinodKumar Sahu S/oShri P.R. Sahu, Aged' about 34 years, R/o Vjllage Ghuthul Kundi, Tahsil - Pandariya, Dist.: Kabirdham (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Balram Yadav Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Kanjheta, Post - Kolagaon, Tahsil-Pandariya, Dist. : Kabirdham (C.G.) (Owner) 3. Smt. Savita Bai Wd/o Aish Kumar Sahu, Aged about 26 years 4. Smt. Tilmatj Bai,l W/o Nathu Ram Sahu, Aged abouf52years 5. Nathu Ram Sahu S/o Jagat Ram Sahu, Aged about 55 years 6. Parwati D/o Late Aish Kumar Sahu, Agedabout 10years 7. Ku. Janki D/o Late Aish Kymar Sahu, Aged about 8 years 8. Deen Dayal S/o Late Aish Kumar Sahu, Aged about 6 years 9. Ku, Than Mati D/o Late Aish Kumar Sahu, Aged about 4 years (Respondents 3 to 9 Claimants) Respondents No. 6 to 9 are through respondent No.3 Smt. Savita Baithe mother and natural guardian All ;are R/o Village Salhe Ghors, P.S. & Tahsil—Lormj, Dist.: Bil^spuF (C.G.) ^.^' ^ Misc. Apoeals No. 1097 of 2005 & 306 of 2006 (A&peals under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act.1988) Appearance: : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu & Mr. G.S. Patel, Advocates for the claimants. ; Mr. Raj Awasthy, Adyocate for th^ N9tjpndl Insurance Company. None for the Owner and Drjyer. J JUDGMENT (2.Z07.2009) Foltowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) These appeals have been;fi|ed ageiinst the award dated 10.8.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 13/2005 bytheSecondAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). M.A. No. 306/2006 has been filed by the National Insurance Company for reducing,the quantum of award, whereas, M.A. Np. 1097/2005 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement ofthe amount ofcompensation. (2) The facts, briefiy stated, are asunder- s The claimants are the widow, minor children and parents of deceased Ash Kumar Sahu who died in;the motor accident. The ctaimants filed a Ctaim Petition u/s 166 ofthe MotorVehicles Act claiming compensation of R^,35,75,^00/- on account of death of deceased Ash Kumar Sahu, whichtoQkplaceqn 17.1,2005 when the motorcycle, which the d'iceased was driving, was dashed by the offending vehicle (Tata-407) bearing registration No. CG-10 ZB 1476 on account of rash and negljgent driving ofthe said vehicle by its driver resulting into his instantaneoys death. The claimants pleaded that the deceased wasearning Rs.250-300/- per day from his kirana shop in village Sylheghpri. B&sides the above, he was also earning Rs.75,000/-,per annym from the agricLiJture land. ^..,, ^s^ -^Fl^ Misc. Appeals No. 1097 of 2005 & 306 of2006 The owner ofthevehicle remainedex-parte. The driver ofthe vehicle filedhis written statement denying the contentions of the claimants and pleaded that he was||iot drivjng the vehicte rashly and negligently, therefore, the cla!<n9nt!5 were not entitled to receive compensation. The Insurance Company also fiied its written statement denyinglhe contentions pf^heclaimants. They further took the plea that tht vehjql^was ;being plied in breach of policy conditions as the driver ofthe vehiclewas not having a valid license on the date of acciclent. The Insurance Comp^ny wa^also granted permission u/s 170 ofthe MotorVehiclesActon1M.t2005. The claimants examined Sayita Bai (AW-1), RaghunathSahu (AW-2) and Keshav Sahu (AW-3) in supportoftheirClaim Petition, whereas the Insurance CjOmpany examjned one Sudarshan Das (NAW-1) in rebuttat. : :i::^^^ Learned Claims Tribunal recorcled •finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tata-407) by itsclriverand the insurer of the said vehicle was liable to pay compensation.It further held that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,QOQ/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd towards tbe personal exjsensesof the deceased, the annual dependency of the clajm9nts was assessed to Rs.48,000/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and the compensation was worke 1 out to Rs.8,64,OQO/-. By adding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked put to Rs.8,71,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest atthe rate of 7.5'%) per annum from the date of filing ofthe Claim Petition till its realizatjon.i (3) Legrned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants argued that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly and a low compensation has been awarded. ^ _,__,.__._.._._____. ••:^'% '""^ •^<,,..',_^- m Misc. AppealsNo. i.097 of 2005 & 306of2006 ^) (4) On the other hand, teaned counsel for tbe Insurance Company opposed these arguments. He further Gontend^d that a high income has been assessed and the highest multiplier has been applied, therefore, the quantum of compensation should be suitablyreduced. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe claim case. (6) So far as assessment of the income is concerned, AW-1, Savita Bai, stated on oath, that the deceased was having a kirana shop in village Salheghori, from which he was earning Rs.250-300/- per day. It was the only kirana shop in the village. The deceased had 6 acres of agriculture land, in which, they were cultivating paddy, wheat and gsam etc. She stated that in fact, the deceased was eamjng Rs.8,p00/- per month from the kirana shop. In support of the factthat the decea$ed was running a kirana shop, she had filed many document$ likelicense etc. issued by the Excise Department to sell tobacco and various n^tices in relation to the shop issued from time to time. She has !also filed the records of the agriculture land. The contents of the docurnents, filed by the claimants would show that the deceased was running a k//ia/?ashop in the village. She was cross examined at length on the point of income of the deceased but nothlng material could be broughton record on which it could be said that the deceased was not having such a kirana shop as pleaded by the claimants. It is in thisstate of evidence, the Tribunal assessed that the deceased was.eaming Rs.200/- perday and Rs.6,000/- per month from his said k/'ranashop The Trjbunal has not assessed any income of the deceased from agriculture land. Aftergoing through the entire material on record, we do not find any fault in the essessment of ..fc.^^.fr-^;.-^,,,/;;;, Misc. AppealsNo. 1097 of 2005 & 306 of 2006 income of the deceased by the Tribunal. The same is based on orat testimonyof AW-1, Savita Bai (wjdow of the deceased) as also the documents relating to theshop filed by her. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.6.000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annuifi from his ^na;shopwhich was being run in village Salheghori and the^rgurnerits relating to assessment of income ofthe deceased cannot be acceptecl, (7) So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Mr. Raj Awasthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, argued that the multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal was extremely higher. The Tribunal has selected the multiplier of 18 on the basis of Schedule prescribed u/s 163-A ofthe MotorVehicles Act holding that the deceased was in between 25-30 years of age. Admittedly, the claim was not filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the multiplier prescribed in the Schedule was not binding on the Tribunal. In a Claim Petition filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribynai has|to see that a just and proper compensation has to be awarded and every efforts should be made with a view to arrive at a just and prpper compensation. The Apex Court has said time and again that jn a claim case, the amount of compensation should neither be a meagerampunt nora bonanza. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation js not jxp^cted to be windfa!! for the victim. The statutory provislons clearly.communicatethat the compensation must be just. The coyrts and trjbunals havea dutyto weigh i; ^;:'•':.'."" :'..' , .'\;. ^ :-''j-.;::.;" .^i:'':--:^i ;—, the various factors and quantify the ampunt of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particuiar facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every ^^s^;.:, 3& Misc. Appeals NQ. 1097 of 2005 & 306 of 2006 method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of"just" compensatiQn^vhich is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonabl^ness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Harvana and another —Vs-Jasbsr Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C.RebellofMrs.) and others -Vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Comoration and another. (1999) 1 SCC 90. (8) Keeping in mind the piii.ciples referred to above in various decisions of the Apex Court as also the fact that the deceasedwas aged about 29 years and the widow has been shown to be ag^d about 26 years and there are 4 minor children aged about 10 years, 8 years,6 years & 4 years and that the parents were also depended upon the deceased and further that it was a Petition filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, we deem it appropriate to apply the multip'ier of 14 in this case and to re-compute the compensatiQn. (9) By applying the multiplier of 14 to the annual depondency of Rs.48,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.6,72,000/-. Ey adding a further sum of Rs.15,000/- underthe other permissjble heads, the total amount works out to Rs.6,87,000/-, wliich the claimgnts are entitled to receive as compensation on account ofdeatl^of deceased Ash Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The claimants are also entitled to receive interest on the said amount of Rs.6,87,000/-at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Pet^ion tiil|7.9.2006 oniy because it has been stated at bar that the In&urance Conpany hcs aiready r' IIftl vatti Misc. Appeals No. 1097 of2005& 306 of 2006 deposited Rs.7,50,000/- as the final amoynt pf compensation on the basis of impugned award on 7.9.2006 sindRs.^O.OOO/- was deposited earlier by them. (10) In the result, MA. No%109^0G|5,Mfife^^^^^ enhancement of the amount <:^|cQnT^o|^0n, i|?^dj^ M.A. No, 306/2006, filed by the Insurance CoHi|::(^ny.|i& ajlowed to the extent indicated above. 1 ^ (11) No orders as to the cost, Sd/- ChiefJusfice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge