HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon^ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. M.A. No. 116 of 2006 Nathuram Manjhi & Others Vs. Lekhram Dhruw 85 Others JUDGMENT Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON»BLESHRI JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR ^^ 3 ajy^J2— Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^/02/2011 Post for Judgment : ^/ 02/2011 Sd/- ^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon*ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon»bleShri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. AooeUants Claimants M.A.No. 116 of 2006 Nathuram Manjhi, aged about 50 years, Son of Shri Bedram Manjhi, Caste Gond Gunabi Bai, aged about 45 years, Wife of Shri Nathuram Manjhi, Caste Gond Vishnuram, aged about 14 years, Son of Shri Nathuram Manjhi, Caste Gond The appellant No.3 is Minor, through his natural guardian Father Shri Nathuram Manjhi, Son of Shri Bedram Manjhi, and All resident of Village Koyba, Post Indagaon, Police Station Deobhog, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents Lekhram Dhruw, aged about 29 years, Son of Shri Salikram Dhruw, Resident of Village Raveli, Police Station Chhura, District Raipiir (C.G.) Yashdeep Singh Son of Shri ISardar Gurumel Singh, Resident of Jaisingh Garage, Near Bhaisthan, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through, Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor, Madina Manzil Building, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) ^/^. i f^y^ 1'-.^' JJ \ '^/' M.A.No.ll6of2006 Aooearance: ^- Mr. P.P. Sahu and Mr. U.P.S. Sahu, 'Advocates for the appellants/claimants. None for respondents 1 to 2. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. JUDGMENT ( f0.02.2011) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 18/2005 by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (CG) vide award dated 2.1.2006. (2) The appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of deceased- Am.ar Singh, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,OOO/- for his death in the motor accident which took place on 21.12.2004 when he was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. CG 04/G-3400 on account ofrash and negligent driving ofthe said truck by its driver. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by working in a grocery shop. The Tribunal, on a close scnitiny of the evidence led before it, held that it was not established that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal, ^ il^,£^'A y 1 "?^ M.A.No.ll6of2006 therefore, resorting to the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act held the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule prepared u/s 163-A ofAct. The Tribunal deducted l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 to the said annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- and the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.17,000/- under other heads and the total amount of corapensation was worked out to Rs.1,97,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,97,000/- as compensation to the appellants for the death of deceased- Araar Singh in the inotor accident on 21.12.2004. The Tribunal held that respondent No.3 was liable to pay entire amount of compensation. The Tribunal also directed that the aforesaid amount should be deposited within one month from the date of passing of the award, otherwise respondent No.3 would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annuni from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. (3) Mr. P.P. Sahu 85 Mr. U.P.S. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, argued that the income was not properly assessed, therefore, a low amount of conipensation has been awarded to the appellants which may be suitably enhanced. ^, -••^i. M.A.No.ll6of2006 (4) On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed y the Claims Tribunal. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe claim case. (6) The appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per raonth and Rs.24,000/- per annum by working in a grocery shop. The Tribunal did not rely on the contention of the appellants and held the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if we hold the income of the deceased as Rs.24,000/- per annum, as pleaded by the appellant, the deduction will be one-half on the principles laid down in Syed Basheer Ahafned and Others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another^ (2009) 2 SCC 225 because the deceased was unmarried, and the dependency would come to Rs.12,000/- per annum. The claimants are parents and brother of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier would not exceed 10 in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Municipal Conjoration of Greater Bovnbay -Vs- Lcucman lyer & another, (2003) 8 SCC 731. By applying multiplier of 10 to Rs.12,000/-, the corapensation would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.1,30,000/-. Whereas, ^ J '-.^,- M.A.No.ll6of2006 the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,97,000/- which is inuch higher than the amount calculated in the above manner. (7) The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonablew compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation inust be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "justM denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non- arbitrariness. Please see State of Haruana and another -Vs- Jcisbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another. (1999) 1 SCC90. ^ M.A.No.ll6of2006 (8) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants. (9) The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (10) No orders as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge vatti r