^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 967/2007 APPELLANTS Smt. Goras Bai and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Ramsingh Saini •- and others. l^m ORDER Poston ^Julv,2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \A ^l-^' ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLESHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.(C) No. 967 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Plaintifrfs 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 about 41 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.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon ^ .07.2010) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.05.2007 passed in Claim case No. 37/2006. 2. In this case, the claimants filed the claim petitionvseeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,0007- for the death of Ku. Suman Sagar, aged &,ifff 20 years and was unmarried, 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.1,20,000/- as compensation along with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition on 19.4.2006 till the date of actual payment. 3. The deceased Ku. Suman Sagar was the grand daughter of claimant No.1 and the sister of claimant No.2 - Sunaina Soni. 4. According to unfortunate claimants, the deceased ,Chait Sagar along with her 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 1292 (henceforth 'the truck'), in a rash negligent manner and was coming 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 of the deceased at the time of accident is 20 years and was a student. 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 ifs 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 also put forth by the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence on the date of accident. On these 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 Ku. Suman Sagar has died on the spot in the motor accident 6n 14.01.2006; the deceased Ku. Suman Sagar died f' t ^-t^ l. 'ml 11 !^»^ 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. 8. As respondent No.3 has not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 9. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and thus awarded lumpsum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- @ 7.5%. 10. According to Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of the deceased atRs. 15,0007- per year instead of Rs.36,000/-. As regards dependency, learned counsel fairly admitted that the dependency should be at 50% of the income of the deceased and the multiplier of 10 should be taken. 11. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken notional income of the deceased - Ku. Suman Sagar at Rs.15,000/-. According to him, multiplier of Qshould be used. Lastly, he argued that this appeal should be dismissed because there is no scope of enhancement in this appeal. 12. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, it is clear that the present claimants have filed 6 separate appeals for the death of Chandra Kumar Sagar, 45 years (Sweeper), Smt. Chait Sagar, 40 years (housewife),Sandhya Sagar, 22 years (house lady), Supriya, 14 years (student), Suman Sagar, 20 years and Suraj Sagar, 22 years in one accident occurred on 14.01.2006. 13. Looking to the above features of the case, l am of the opinion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circuhistances of the present case. \A ^\ ^,- ^A^ /' ^ ^ 14. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sumof Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.21,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge I: