INTHEHIGHCOUR.TOFJUDICATUR.EATBILASPUR.CC.G) MISCELLANEOb'S APPEAL NO.Cf/200 APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^ <1) (21 ®ivisionBench Ishwgr Vgishngv 5/o L-3'te Bgrjhu Dgs Vgishngv Agej gbou-i- 30 yegrs, Sukb Rgm Vgishn^v S/o Lgte Barjhu Pgs V9ishn3v, Agej gbout- 27 ye^fs, Both gi-e P7o Village- Dgfragi , Post- Pg-tr^gi, Thang- Bhgfapgpq, Pisft- R3ipur,CG VERSUS RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT <.. ..<'^- ^•^ ^y <<;••'" -•"'.^ 9- <^-"' •^' ^'&* <-'..<p'y^ ^"^' w C2) ^ )y prgtash S/o Sri Mgngal Chgnj Rgibore, R/o Cbi^rpgq, Pufgni Bgsti Thgng - Jgnjgir, Distt- JgnjgirCC.G.) Rgjkum^r Kejig Through: M/s. R.K.Ag^rwgl, Tqnsport Ngggr, Korbg (C.G.) The New lnji3 InsurgnceCompaoy Limi'te4, Tbrough; Divisional Mangger, M9<iin9 Builjing, Kgchghgri Chowk, J3il R.ogj- R.gipucCC.G.) <^ ^ Miscellaneous Appeal undef/section 173 Motof Vehicle Act 1988 \^' (\ HIGH GOURT 01= CHHAT11SQWH AT BIUWUR MAN0.090F2004 APPELLANT ADplteant RESPONDEOTS Non-aDollcdints tetwar Vatehnav & Anottter Versus Jaf Prakwh &OBiere Memo ofaDDealunderSection 1%ol'theMotor VditeteAcl 1MB (SB: Hon'bteMr.N.K.AnniKrt.J.I Present : ShriALSh^wil.Adyocrteforappdtarts. QIWL.OIWBR yassed cm 3"' day ot SeptenAa, 2B10) This te dahnant's appeal seeMi^ aihancement of compensation agaln^ e award dated 09.10.2(X®,paraed by the l^ Additlonal Mt^w Acctdent Ctaims Tribunal and Di^rict Judge, Ratpur, in Ctalm Case No. 68^2, awareBng Rs. ^,000/- as compensatiffli against the respondents. Brief facts of the caseare ttut, m a).05.Q2, Shyam Bal (smce dec^sed), met wlth anacctctent wlth Truck bwriRg r^|istrartton No. CG-12-ZC-0715 and succumbed to the mjuries st.Btalned in the sahJ accident. The appettant's i.e. legal representatiwsfeon's of deceased Shyam Bai, preferred a claim petitton under Section 166 of the IMotor Vehtetes Act ctaimii^ Rs. 2,96,00ty- as compensatlon for the death of deceased in the sakl accident. The Tribunal, on a close scrutirqf of evldwree ted by theparifes and the material avallabte on reoord, amreirded R& ^,000/- as compensation to the dalmante for the death <rf cteceased in the said accident. Shri AL Sli^roul, leamed counsel appearirg fw the appeUarte would submit thal the anwunt awwded by the Trilxwal te shockmgly on lower slde and Uie same deserves to t»sultabty enhanced. -+ ^..••ani ^..r""' '•^ -i^ '•f-^.r^f \ 6. Undis^itedly, the appellarts/cteiimants ar®aged aboirt 30 and 27 years okl respectively and are eaming memba's, not dependert upon the deceased. Looklng to the age of the deceased and ateo tooking to the ftKrt that appetlants is not dependent upon the deceased, in the constctered opinton ofthis court, the amount awarded by the Trtwrat is jurt and reasonabte. 7. The Supreme Court In case of Hka^aii Bwa (^nS.) vs. OrientsS Inswsnce CompanyLttl.'1, hss held in para 13 & 20 asunda': *13. There are several Tactore whteh have to be noted. The liabillty under Secdon 140 of fte A(rt (kws not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to flte a daim appltcation has to be consldered In the baeNgfwiml of r^ht to entittement. Whjte assesslng the quantum, the multiplier s^tem is applied becauae of dqarivaBon of dqaendency. In other wonte, multlplier te a measure. There are three stages wNte asseaslng the questton of entittement. FireUy the Uabtllty of the pereon vSw is liabte and the pereim who is to indemnify the Uablljty, if any. NKd is B»e quantlficaHon and Sertiai 166 te primarily in Uie narture of recomry {woceedfngs. AB noted above, liability in tem®of Seetxm l^) of the Ad: does not cease because dl absence of dependency. 20. (n my qXntCTi, "no-fauK UabiNty", wvisaged in Sectton J40 of the said Act, is cfetlnguishabto ftom the rule of "^rict tiabillty". In the former, the CCTnpensatlon amount fe fb(ed. tt is Rs. 50,000 in cases of death [Sectton t40 (2)]. It is a statdory liabllity. It is an amount which can be deducrted from the fmal amount awarded by the Tribunat. ••^s» ^i.!'^ ?, ,.*'^ •7 8. Smce, the amount s flxed amounVcrystaUized amount, the same has to be consldaFed as part trf the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an eamit^ member. The statutory compenKrtion coutel constltute part oS Ns estate. Hls tegal representaUiw, namdy,. his daughter has inherited hte estate. Shewae entitted to inherit hls estate. tn Uie circumstances, she was entttled to recave compensation under *no-fsult liability" in terms of Sectfon 140 of the MK* Aet. My opinion js confined wily to the "flo-teult HabNity" under Sectton 140 of the sakl Act. That secAton is a Code by llseff wtthin the Motor VeWcles Act, 1988" Therefore, in the facts situafion of the preserrt csse and in vtew of above r^erred judgment of Supreme Court, 1 do not flnd and illegality or frregularity in the award warrardlng tnterference of this court. The s^peal, being devoid ofsubslance is Uabte to be and is hereby dfemissed. No oreler asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Siahu a!Sti-..lc.l.frd f<Lr.";-"iT;;I;"'"'JU s.atBAasilJUi.LS