£ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAEUI, BILASPUR D.B: Hon>ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha fis Hoa'ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma^J,_J. MISC. APPEAL (C) No.1621 of 2008 Appellasits 1. Bisatiu Das, aged about 44 years, s/o PUrushottam Das Vaishnav 2. Sint. Tileshari Bai, aged 38 years, w/o BisaAru Das Botli above residents of Rajpur,. P.S. Dhamdha Distt. Durg (C.G). Versus RESPONDBNTS 1 Rakesh Kiimar Sahu, s/o Kashiram, Resident of Sbuth S.T. D. Anaad District Anand (Gujrat) (Driver ©f Offeiidmg Vehicle Tmck No.CG- 008/ZC/0232) - Expired;Thus l(a) Neeta Saliu, w/o Rakesh Sahu, aged 22 years l(b) Karaa Kuniar Sahii, aged aboutS years (Natural Guardian. Neeta Saliu), Bofh above residents of Chui Khadaii Distt. Rajnaiidgaon 2 Bhagat Siagli aged about 43 years, s/o Jethusin.gh Rajuput, r/o Kalegondhi, P.S. Gaadai, Tehsil; Chuikhadaa, Distt. [Rajnandga<on, (Owner of Offendmg Vehicle Truck No. CG-008/ZC/0232) 3 The Oiientsl Insurao.ee Coinpany Limited, through Regional Maiiager, Malyiya Nagar, Durg, District Dzirg Braiich Office: Kamthi Lme, Rajnandgaou, lusuraiice Coinpaiiy of ofiFendiag veliicle No.CG-008/ZC/0232 MEMORA.NDUM OF APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearasace: Shri Anurag Jha, coixnsel for the appeUaats. 1: M.A(C).No. 1621/2008 . . • (05.02.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by 8UNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard on adniission. The appellajits/claiinants have ISled ttiis appeal u/s 173 of tlie Motor Vehicles Act for enhaiicement of the amount of compensation awarded by tiie XII Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Durg, m ClaunCase no.90/2007 on 23rd ofJuly 2008. Deceased Mohas Das, aboy age.d about 17 years, died ni flie motor accideut on 15.1.2007 when he was dashed by the ofiendmg truck bearmg Reg.No. C.G.08 ZC 0232. The claunants pleaded ttiat tlie deceased was seUiag mUfc and he was eaiiinig Rs.6000/- per Biontli. Though such pleaduigs were taken by tiie clamiaiits but no cUnchixig evidenee was adduced by flieni to prove such nionfhly incouie of tlie deceased, tlierefore, flie Tribunal worked out the aoiount of com.pensatiou on tlie basis of uotional iacoine ofRs.15,000/- per inontih.. The Tribunal, without inaldng aiiy deduction from. ffie said riotional incorae of tlie deceased, straight-way appUed tlie raultipMer of 15 to such notional uicoxne aad awarded a suin of Rs.2,25,000/- as the aiaount of coiiipeusation ou account of deatli of deceased to fhe claioiaats. The Tribunal furfher awarded a suin ofRs.25,000/- under tlie other lieadsaiid a total suni of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded as coinpensation to tlie claiaiao.ts on account of deatti of tlie deceased ia the saicl motor accident The Tribunal also awaixled iaterest@ 6% per aiinum. thereon froiii the date of filiiig of flie clami petition i.e., 25.8.2007. The Tribunal also raade a clause that tf the aforesaid amoiint is iiot deposited witliin 45 days, tlie iiiterest would be chargeable @ 9% per aanuni. Shri Anurag Jha,leanied counseUor fhe appellaats ai'gues tliat a low conipensation has been awarded to ttie appellaats. The Tribunal ought to have calculated tlie amount of coiapensation treatiag flie uicomie of the deceased as Rs.6000/- perm.ontli. We have heard leaaied coiulsel for flie appellante at length aiid have also penised fhe records of the Tribunal. As stated earlier^ the claimaats had pleaded tiiat the deceased was eaniin.g Rs.6000/ - per Biontli by seUiag niiUc. ^ ^.. 4 M.ACQ.No. 1621/2008 However, no cliachuig evidence was adduced on fliis poiiit. The Tribunal has observed vide para 3 of fhe award while discussiiig tiie case of flie appeUaats/clamiaats fliat Uie deceased was a student aiid tlie accident took place whlle he was returaio.g from tlie school. Such pleadiag is tliere iii pai'a 2 ofthe claiin petition. We fail to understand as to how a school goiiig boy will make eaiiiiiig ia such a raaaner, as pleaded by fhe claiinants. It is iii tiiese circunistaiices tlie Tribunal has made calculations on the basis of notional iaconie of tlie deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annuBi. Eveu ifwe assurae tliat the notional iiicoiae would have been taken at Rs.30,000/- per aanuni ui view ofrise ui prices of essential coraniodities ia beteveen 1994 and 2007, tlie dependency of flie appeUaiits/clamiaiits beiag the parents of fhe cleceased would have been 50% or even less tlian that in view of titie decision of tlie Apex Court rendered ia fhe matter of DQnat LQUJS Machczdo and ^thers -^s' L. Ravindra andothersf199818 SCC 633 aad it would have not exceeded Rs. 15,000/ - per raonth. As far as the inultiplier is conceraed, admittedly ftie clamiaats are tiie pai'ents aad niultiplier used by flie Tribunal ixi tiie uistaat case is 15, whereas ia such cases, the inultipMer would not have exceeded 10 ia view of flie dictuni of flie Apex Court iii fhe matter of MMnicipa! 'Corporafion of Greater Sombew -^s' Leixm.an lyer a.n.d a.nother {2003] 8 SCC 731. The law iti relation to awardmg compensation iii accident cases is weU settied. Under tfie Motor Vehicles act, 1988 flie Tribunals are under obMgation to award "just and reasonable" compensation to tlie genuiae clamiaats al'ter determiiiiiig tlie factura ofaccident as also tfie factuni ofrash aiid negligent act on tlie pait of driver of ttie offenduig veliicle. It has to be bome iii mmd tliat tlie cQmpensation is not expected to be wmdfall for fhe victim. Tfae statutoiy provisions clearly coianiunicate ftiat flie coinpensation must be just ancl it caanot be a bonaiiza. The courts and tiibunals have a duty to weigh the vadous factors aiid quaiiti^r tlie amount of conipensatiou, which should be just aiid which would depend upon tfie particular facts aad circuiixstances, aiid attending pecuUar or special featui'es, ifaay. Every niethod or raode adopted for assessiiig compensation lias to be considered iii tlie background of "jusf' coinpeusation which is tlie pivotal consideration aiid requii'es judicious approach. The expression M.ACCVNo. 1621/2008 "^- "jusf' denotes equitabillty, fauiiess, reasonableness aiid non- arbitrariness. Please see State @f Haniem.a and another -^s- Jcisbir Kaur and others (2003j 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebcll^ (Mrs.] and others -vs' Mahcxretshtra State Rocsd Transpoyt Corporation and another. (1999] 1 SCC 90. lu view of all fhis, we do not fiad aay scope for enhaiicesiient of tlie aixiount of corapensation awarded to the appeUaats by the Claixas Tribunal. The appeal has no raerit; tlie same deserves to be aad is accordiiigly dismissed at tlie Hiotion stage, itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Rao