^ GH COURT OF CPfflATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1669 of2008 ^v^ Pashupati Singh & Others Vs. Nandlal Yadav & Others Post ofpronouncement ofjudgment and orders orA^ /07/2009. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge li HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 1669 OF 2008 APPELLANTS fclaimantsl RESPONDENTS 1. Non-applicants 1. Pashupati Singh, Aged about 50 years, S/o Ramchandra Singh. 2. Smt. Chinta Devi, Aged about 46 years, W/o Pashupati Singh 3. Ku. Babita Singh, Aged about 18 years, D/o Pashupati Singh 4. Sanjit Singh, Aged about 15 years, S/o Pashupati Singh, Through: His natural guardian and father Pashupati Singh., S/o Ramchandra Singh, All above R/o Mandhar Colony, Behind Gayatri Mandir, Police Station Vidhan Sabha Chowki, Dharsiwa, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Nandlal Yadav, Aged about 35 years, S/o Lalbihari Yadav, R/o Amadpur, Police Station Jafarabad, District Jonpur (U.P.) At present R/o Behind Veenu Petrol Pump, Beergaon, Police Station Khamtarai, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Parvindar Singh, Aged about 27 years, S/o Ajamer Singh, R/o 20/850 Shyam Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-1, Branch Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocates for the appellants. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocates for respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 9.^ day ofJuly, 2009) 1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement ofthe compensation, awarded by the VIIIth AdditionalMotor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal), vide award dated 30.08.2007, in Claim Case No.50/2006. ^-\ ^'^: 5. The claimants are unfortunate parents of deceased Sanjay Singh, claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,65,0007- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act,1988') for his death in a motor accident. On 22-02-2006 a Tanker bearing registration No. CG 04 ZC- 1118 dashed his motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. CG 04 CH-9875 by which he was coming from Raipur to Bilaspur, resulting into his death. The claimants further pleaded that their son Sanjay Singh used to eam Rs. 8000/- per month as an employee of Arti Sponge Iron., and used to spent only 1000/- on him., was ofthe age of25 years at the time ofaccident. The owner and Driver of the offending Tanker remained exparte. The insurer of the Tanker contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer of the Tanker took the plea that as the vehicle was being driven in breach of condition of the policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The claimants examined Chintamani (AW/1) and Shailendra Singh (AW/2), whereas the insurer ofthe Tanker did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The Tribunal, on a close scmtiny ofthe evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions ofthe parties, held that claimant's son died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 22.02.2006. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tanker Driver; as the Tanker was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, considering all the aspects of the matter, awarded a sum ofRs. 2,61,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 v\ .^^f^^ /y^'\ :-:^^j^J, ,^--" percent per annum from the date of application till date of actual payment. Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing low income; in deducting 50 percent towards own expenses of the deceased; and in applying multiplier of 12 while computing amount of computation. .Placing reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in cases of Syed Basheer Ahmed & Others v. Mohd. Jameel & Another (2009 AIR SCW 493), Mohan Singh v. Kashi Bai & Others ( 2009 AIR SCW 1664), Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and Others (2008 (5) SCC 736), Bilkish v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another ( 2008 AIR SCW 5040) and Sunita Lokhande and Others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2008 ACJ 921), leamed counsel for the appellants would submit that the income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 8000/- per month; dependency ought to have been assessed as 2/3 of income and 13 multiplier ought to have been applied in terms of Second Schedule ofthe Act, 1988, and prays for enhancement ofcompensation. Per contra, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would submit that in fact the compensation awarded is on higher side inasmuch as in view of settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in case of a death of bachelor son where parents are claimants, the multiplier cannot exceed 10 and the loss ofdependency should be 1/3 of deceased total income. They further submit that the cross objection preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed and amount awarded deserves to be suitably reduced. 't---, ^m^sss^.^- ,,....-.&^:»:^----. ^-—•" 7-! 8. I have gone carefully through the record ofthe case and the award impugned. The Tribunal, based on the evidence led by the claimants, regarding income held that to prove the income at Rs. 8000/- per month, cogent documentary as well as oral evidence has not been adduced by the claimants, and therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 3000/- per month;'by deducting 50 percent ofthe income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, dependency has been assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month; by applying multiplier of 10, total compensation assessed by the Tribunal on account ofloss of income was Rs. 2,16,000/-; by adding Rs. 45000/- on other heads, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 2,61,000/-. 9. Deceased was aged about 26 years and was bachelor on the date of accident, and would have married in due course, his contribution towards his parents after his marriage would have been substantially reduced, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50 percent towards personal expenses ofthe deceased. 10. As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier, in view ofthe dictum ofthe Supreme Court passed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, "In those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier never exceed W\ and therefore, the multiplier applied 12 in the present case is on higher side. 11. The Supreme Court in case of Mohan Singh (Supra), Their Lordships were not dealing with a case of parents claiming compensation in case ofdeath oftheir unmarried son. ^' Sahu 12. The Supreme Court in its latest decision in case of of Syed Basheer Ahmed (Supra), obser^ed in para 18 as under: "18. On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, on-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting interference with the consistent view ofboth the courts below on the point." 13. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench ofthis High Court in the matter of Shivlal Sahu & Another v. Chandra Shekhar & Others, reported in 2009 (1) CGLJ 216 (DB). 14. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 15. Taking into all relevant factors into account and taking into account the dicta of Supreme Court in cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, and Syed Basheer Ahmed (Supra), in my opinion, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable and does not call for interference. The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, cross-objection preferred by the appellant are also dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge