HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DIVI8ION BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, JJ. M.A. No. 1228 of 2003 Oriental Insurance Company Versus Puni Ram Sahu 8s Others And MA. No. '75 of 2004 Pum' Ram 85 Others Versus Shri Narmada Motor Transport Cooperativa Society, Pendra 8:. Othexs ORDER Older for consideration a Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Hon’ble 3m Justice L.c. Bhadoo, J‘ Sd/ 7 ? agw L.C. BHADO Judge / > W Post for Order: L9<082007 a M . S§'£I’~ f“ " " Judge ‘ Sunil. Kumar amha i , ' ‘ 3 / l O 2 M.A. No. 1228 of2003 &. MA Nnr 7s nmnnn 5. Ku Sarajam Bal agsd 16 years D[o Pumram Sahu No. 5 M11101" through natural guardlan Smt, Kailasha Bai Sahu, W/o. Puniram Sahu All R/ o. Village v Laripara, Chherkabandha, RS. Kata, Tahsil and Distriét Bilaspur (C‘GJ Versus REskomDENTs owNER Shri Narmada Motor Transport Cooperative Society, Pendla, Through President, Tahsil Pendra Road and District Bilaspur (C.G.) DRIVER 2. Mobin, aged 44 years, R/o. Village Semra, Tahsil Pendra Road, Diskict Bilaspur (C.G.) INSURER 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Manager, Dayalband Bilaspur, Disil'ict Bilaspur (C.G.) ‘ "(éPPEALS UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF TEE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT‘ 1988’ égpearance: Shxi Gaufam Khetrapal, counsel for the Claimants in both the appeals. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the Insurer in both the appeals. DIWSION BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOD & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL‘KUMAR SINHA JJ. ORDER (223820071 Following Older of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kama: Sinha, J, {1) These two appeals arise out of a common award dated 30.09.2003 assed‘by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaépur in Claim Case No. 12(99, wheleby, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.2,37,000/ - along with interest @ 996 per annum from the date of passing of the ‘ award. v n' w p 3 M. A. No. 1228 of2003 & MA. No. 75 0f2004 (2) The Insurance Company has 151ed the appeal for setu'ng aside the awaltl, Whereas, The claimants have &ed the appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. (3) The brief facts are that the claimants nled an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 praying compensation to the tune of Rs.10,70,000l- on account of death of Radheshyam, son of claimants No. 1 & 2 and the brother of claimants No. 3 to 5. The compensation was also sought for the death of two Buh'aloes and damage caused to the Bullock Cart in the said accident. As per the pleadings in the claim petin'on, on 26.04.94, While the deceased- ‘ Radheshyam was coming hem his Village Laripara via Kota towards Bilaspur, near village Sakri at about 10.30 p.m., his bullock cart, which was loaded with wood, was hit from behind by the Bus No. MQL-47 owned by non-applicant No.1 and driven by non-applicant No.2. As'a result of the said accident, r the bullock cart was completely damaged and both the Buil'aloes died on the spot. Radheshyam received many injuries, claimant No. 1 also received injuries. They were taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur, where Radheshyam died on account of the said injuries and claimant No. 1 was treated in the hospital. Though a case under Section 304-A IPC was registeted against the driver by police station Chakarbhata but the police did not filed the charge-sheet against him and a hnal report was submitted. nv \~ 4 MA. Na. 1228 of2003 & M.A. No. 75 0f2004 (4) The owner filad its Written statenmnt denying the alleged accident. The dn'vcr remained expartt. The Insurance Company alsa filed its wn‘tten statement after taking permission under Section 170 of 1:113 Motor Vehicles Act. It also denied the factum of accident saying that the accident did not occur from the Bus No. MQL-47. According to them, the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. (5) Learned Claims Tribilnal framed various issues in this case and after recording the evidence of the parties, allowed the claim as above. It is against this award, claimants as Well as Insurance Company have tiled these appeals. ‘ (6) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised two points, he argued that it has not been established before the Tribunal that the said Bus No. MQL-47 was involved in the accident, therefore, the nnding in this regard is perverse. Secondly, he argued that the multiplier of ’20, used in this case, is too high, which ought not to have applied by the Tribunal looking to the age of the deceased and the claimants. (7) Opposing these arguments, learned counsel for the claimants argued that the Claims Tribunal has rightly determined that the accident was caused by Bus No. MQL-47. Opposing the arguments regarding quantum, he argued that in a fact, the income has not been properly assessed and the interest has also not been awarded from the date of accident, therefore, the amount of award be suitably enhanced. 5 M.A. No. 1228 of 2003 & M.A. No. 75 of 2004 (8) We haw hsard, 1€amed ccunsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. (9) So far as identity of the oEending vehicle is concerned, it has been deposed by Puniram (AW— 1) that on fateful night, when he was faking his bullock cart by keeping himselfin front of the caxt, he saw a vehicle rashly come from the back side. At that time, 111's son Radheshyam (since deceased) was sifting on the bullock cam. Seeing this, he stopped the bullock cart on the extreme side of the road waiting passing of the vehicle. The vehicle came from behind and dashed with the cart, due to which, the bullock cart entangled with the Bus and was dragged to some distance. The wheels of the cart were thrown out, he received injuries. Radheshyam fell down on the gmund and became unconscious. The oifending vehicle ran over one of the Budaloes Whose body was crashed and it died on the spot. The second Buffalo also received injuries and bullock cart was completely damaged. He has most specihcally deposed that the odending vehicle (bus) was belonging to Narbada Transport. He has deposed that the lights of a mill, which was situated at the place of occurrence, were on, therefoxe, he could identify the Bus. He has also deposed that Nanki @ Shiv Baggus and many other persons came to rescue them but the Bus ded away towax‘ds Bilaspur. He has proved the requisig'on for post- mortem (EX.-P/ 1), in which it has been mentioned that the pp oEending Bus was belonging to Narhada Transport. o i i WT! 6 M.A. No. 1228 of2003 & M.A. No. 75 of2004 (10} Shiv Baggus has been examined as A.W.-2. He is a driver by profession. He has supported the evidence of A.W.-1. He has stated that he was a passenger in the odending vehicle which belongs to Narbada Transport. This Bus had met with an accident as it dashed the bullock cart, which was dragged to a long distance by Bus. He has deposed that he was sitting on the h‘ont seat and he had witnessed the occurrence. Apart from version pertaining to manner of the accident, he has most specihcally mentioned the number of the Bus as MQL-47. It is on this evidence, the Tribunal has recorded the. finding against issue No.1 that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. MQL-47. 1; (1 1) We have gone through the enn're evidence of these two witnesses and on appreciation, we do not find any infilmity in such nuding recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, dist argument raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no force and the same cannot be accepted. (12) So far as quantum is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 18 years. In the said situation, the Tribunal has assessed his notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per year and after deducting Rs.5,000/-, dependency of Rs. 10,000/- has been determined and using multiplier of 20, it has assessed the compensation towaxds the loss‘ of earning in sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. Apart non} this, for mental agony and pains. a lump sum amount Rs. 10,000] - has been awarded and awa. ~§ 7 MA. N0. 1228 0f2003 & MA. No. 7S of2004 Rs.2,000/- has been awarded on account of 1imera1 expenses. Besides the above, Punh‘am has been awarded Rs.5,000/- 011 account of treatment and injuries sustained by him. Rs. 10,000] - in lump sum has been awarded on account oflove and aifection and Rs.6,000/ - has been awarded for the death of two BuEaloes and Rs.4,000/- has been awarded for damage caused to the bullock cart. In this manner, a total sum of Rs.2,37,000/- has been awaxded to the claimants and the interest has been awanded @ 9% per annum from the date of awald. V (13) In the matter of Adikanda Sethi (Dead) mrough LRs. and "Another —Vs- Fulani Swami Saran Mnsyarts and Another. (199n 5 SCC 435, the Apex Court quoted vide Paxa-4 that the principle of determination of the compensation in the case of fatal accidents was determined by the said Court in UR SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1 996) 4 SCC 362. The Apex Court in para 18, after considering the tabulations, found that the maximum multiplier of puichaser was as under : (SCC p.37 1) \V n-v l “...What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years’ purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and tribunals are Iising higher mulh'plier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34, 8 M.A. N0. 1228 0f2003 & M.A. No. 75 of2004 thereby shawing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case {(1942) I AH ER 657}. (14) On the basis of this judgment, it is clear that the multiplier cannot exceed more than 18 and apparently, a wrong multiplier has been used by the Tn’bunal. Looking to the age of the deceased as also the age of the parents and other dependants, we deem it proper to use the. multiplier of 15 in this case and to reduce the amount of compensation of loss of earning. (15} So far as question of grant of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has not recorded any nnding as to why interest has not been granted from the date of application. We have perused the records of the Tribimal It appears that in this matter, the Claim Peh'tion was nled on 25.10.94 but it was dismissed in default on 21.8.97 and was again restored on 29.6.99 and / thereafter, a final award was passed on 30.9.2003. Certainly, 7/ therefore, the Claimants would not be entitled for interest of the I period commencing from 21.8.97 to 29.6.99, which we round up as to 2 years. If this period is deducted irom the entire period consumed for decision of the Claim Petition, it comes around 7 years. After perusal of the records, it does not appear that the claim account of claimants, was delayed on account claimants, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Claimants are entitled to the interest for the period of '7 years during die pendency of Claim 9 M.A. N0. 1228 0f2003 & MA. N0. 75 of2004 Petition and the Tribunal erred in law in not granting them interest for the said period and we deem it prcper to awaxd the interest @ 6% per annual for the period of 7 yeaIS, which has in fact been net consumed for determination of the proceedings of Claim Petition before the Tribunal. (16), In the matter of State ofHaryana and Another -Vs- Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 484, the Apex Court held that The Tribunal While awalding compensation has to determine the amount which is to be in the real sense “damages”, which in turn aypears to it to be “just and reasonable”. Though compensation for loss of limbs or life cannot be weighed in ' golden scales but at the. same time compensation is not expected to be a Windfall for the Victim The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should he just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the Value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. 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.§’l‘he expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non— arbitrariness. ’