tWQW<X>UICT@F^HHi^B©AR ^ ;'DIVIStQN^JBENC^:':':^/:f.--^ CORftM: :HON«l^':S^^:|lA»(g^liUt1^:e.AA...,.: ', .: :: • .' HON'BLlSNI^I^ICTMt^MOiVWSN ^ !<- Appellants Clatmahte R^iDOndents Non-claKnants Misc.JtoDeaiNd39W20«B 18^ d^ ^ufc :M ^ars,^^ ^ Housewife; 2 Mlnor mart Anjalt ;Vihar «Uo late Sura(Vlhar,)E®eddK<ut<Qyeats, (ftpRettai|t l^a2^^ t^hall^H'u-QughiHNl^rtg^^ :mothert||(:apf»etteint(ileh1) ^ 3 Teteng»Vlhar,^ aged toout 82 y©»s. 4 SiTtt..BasOViharWoTelengaVI^ aged aboutK) yeare, I. .'.'•• . ...' • '.: M the iWidert c(f ynts^Natd.Ne, 1^ Subhastr^NE^r, MaKaisa^ distriyMahasanWfflid^tG.) VERSUS ,-..11 .:,.-<. :.:,:'-' - 1 UdatSingh^^ .tegd^^^^^ about^;years,reSJdent(rfSecter-6, •..:- •'.•.l'BhUai:iNa|^(e^^^'"': '^ ©thersacltN^— urKler^^^!^^ ^Ranj^?l(^,^@l'iaTarWiSI%|, S^k^S^ntei'.ilBBan^^ Di^rtctRaipur<C.©.) ;F^» Ranjeet Slngh, ^o Sharam •ag^?lal3WiK%4St^yis^K,?:?;rajspiHts°^: Satkar TieniRar^ jBhanpuri, Di^nct Rapir (G.G.) |ifa)H:^SHI;'s:*s' The Onental fnsuiancff Canpany yn^e(^ Knjgh Di^toi^A!^^ Kyteheiy Chowk^ Madina Buihft®, Jail Road, Rdpur, Dfstrict Raipur .(C.G^'^;; <:...':'^ MiscellaneoUs Appeal u/S 173 of the Mtrtor VeWtd&Act. 1M8 Present: ShriShhre^ P^ya,teamed!counselforthe appellan^.-.,::',:,';'.:,'.. ,,^,^.;.!^^^ Nonefor respondente No.1 and 2. ShrtSuclMr^i^^t,J^^<^(^^ ^o.3.;; ' ' ••':; ::: •:''.;';^ ORDER ««h ir^ ff)8m December, 2&19) The f611(^i% qrder of Jhe ^ fy ,:Rajeev,©upta,C.J.1'1.,• : ' 1;.; •:: •". ;:1;/ .' :- : ,: '•, •- This te claims^' app^ ^^^^^ CT compensationawardedl^^heS^ndAddWon^Wo^ Claims Tri^nal, Mahasamwid (Ibr short th&Tribunal*) vtcte awarddate(t04.11.2Q04ipa^edmG!aji3nCaselto.57QOM 2) As against the compen^jtion of Rs.7,75,QQQ/-Glaifned t^ the appdlantsfelaimantS(Unfortur^wiA)w,minprd^ parei^ofcleGeasedSurEy:Vlhar,^fittng$dalmp?UUonund^ Section t^of^ MotorVehicl^A<^1^his<lM ^^^w accldent on t2.03.2{^^h&'Tiritonafraw^ Rs.l,53,50£^ asCTmpeR^on along^^^^v^ anmimfironthedateo^Win®oftl (^m^p^ aetuat payment. ^l 3) The Tribynal on a closesGnrtli^ <rf tte^»^^^ befbre tt heldtftat cteceased Suraj Vihardiedon accoynt (^^ injuries sustained byhiminthemotoracteiderrtCTi 12.03.2004; the accident occurred due to rash iind nfegt^ent drivlng of Vhe driver of the offentling vehicte Trucki bearit^ r^istnatiBn No.C.G-04/ZC-O^T;astheaboveoffendingvehiGteTruckontrie date of the accident was insured wtth the Ori®itatInstirance Company LlmWficl and the (nsurance |Gompany could nolr establish any breach of the policy concliUons, tlw Insurance CompanywasliabletopayCCTnpei^iontothe^Hmants. 4) As the respondente have not fltetf any appeal^gain^ the award, the abo^w findlr^ reeoi^^ Trfbunat have now atlained finality. 5) The Tritntnal the income of ttie deGKKed at Rs.1 ,OX)/- iaer month. By deducting 1/y* of Rs.l^XW- towards the pereonal e)q3enses of the deeeasBel, the ctatmarits' dependency was assessed at Rs.667/- per monfe and Rs^^XM/- perannum,whK^wasrounded<^JteRs.8^00^|Wanrnimi^^^^B^ multlplylng Vhe annual (tepCTtderrey of R».8^X)Oy- inffifei the muttipHer of 18/ the compensatiOT w^ wer^ Rs.1,44,00^-. By anwardjng furtherstim of Rs^SQOi^^^u^^ heads, fhe Tribunal awaretetf a total sum of RsJ^ icompenMtion to the etaimants for the deatfr of drceEBed Suray Vihar in the motor acclclent. ^Me Tllbural f^ paymerrt of Interest on the above aminmt^^^ o^ corapensation of ".sssss ^^Ssit^ .l^^^gll ^^ -J;^ 1^'^^^- 4 Rs.1,53,5QO/- @ 8% per annumi from the date of flljng af Vhs ctaimpetltiontillthedateofactualpayment. 6) Shn Shivendu Pand^, leamecteounselfoFtheappettants submltted trtat the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the elaimants' evktence aboirt the income of the decessed andiin assessing his income at Rs.1,000/- per month only; and in awardinglowcompensati(mofRs.1,53,50(y-only. 7) Shri Sudhir ^rawal, leamed counset for respondent No;3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited; ort Uie other hand, supported the snwwd and contended that the com^tensation |of Rs.1,53,50Q/- sBwareted by the |Tribunal is jast and prqpier GompensationinttrefertsancHslroum^ancesofthepresentCa®. 8) In a motor acciderrt claim case, what is important is that, the comperreation to be awardal by the, Gourts/Tribunate shoylct be jusl and proper compensation in the ftrcts andcircunrslaneea of the case. It should neither be a nieager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now;we shall examine as t6 whether the wmperffiaHon of Rs.1,53,500/- awareled t^ the Tribtmal is just and propw ccmpensationmfhefactsandcircun'i^ancesofthepr^entcase. 10) Trye, the clalmants pleaded that deeeased SHra) yil'iar ysed tp earn Rs.tOQ/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month jby pulling Cycle-riGkshaw, theevidence led in that behalfrwas h^hly disGrepant. ^AM Se^abai.WTCtoWoftte though s^ed tilather hust^d^aed to eam Rs.tOO/- IW •lFt~1^..- EuidasumofF^t5/-perclaywaspa<dtotlwow nckshaw, ttiedaimante' olhwwttness^ ttw deceased used^ eam Rs.l^lSQ^^p^ Rs.1Q/-perdaywasRaidtothe^ thisstateofevidence,wedonotfindaRyfc^in^^^^ the Tribunal in disGar^ng the clalnwnts^|®^ro®ab^^^^^^ tncome ofthedeceased. 11) Neverthele^tte inc»meefrthe dec»ased»s<e^ed TribunalatRS.1,(X)Qfrpermor^intheyear20©4iseeiteiin(yon thelowersideantfreqturesreconstctertfro j 12) In our N^ictered opinjein, tf^asetf Sui^ Aflhar^ b^^ 26 years of age coukl have eaSUy;<^^ Rs;?0-7S- per day evCTt by wortnng as an urekilletl labour. Ws, Wereftn®,yopose to recomputo the cqmpensatipn laking the ineome of the dw^ised Ert Rs.2,00)/- pe^month and^ Rs.24,'OOQ/- per annum: 13) By declu^n&the usi^l^ rf pereorralexpensesofthette is assessed at Rs.16,OQO/- per annun'i. l^ Consktering the age oTlhe dpw paiients aBidi widow and nrnnpr daugMer, ^ ^ of ISwouttbeappropriato^ftthep sent <aise. » 15) BymulMplylr®theannuatideperK^<yef^s.'t6,0Q@?-withl themulMpflerof15,the^mp9nsatlo{tWort®Q^to The claimante are further entiUed?to,r«selve Rs.S.OOas- *ow»rdSi funerale)q^ses;Rs.5,(WG^i3rtoiS8<tfK*ate!;^i^^.S^a90/-^^^ ^' '•.'•^"::'-f ll loss of consortium to the widow. The Glaimsurts, thus, bet»me entitled to receive a totalsum of Rs.2,55,000/- a®compensation forthedeathofdeceasedSurajVtharinthemotoraccktwrt. 16) l^amed cpunsel for the partiessuiamjttecltl^ w^ a wew to avoid any possible dlspute between the ;parties about the period for which theclaimantsare entittod to recdve interest on theenhancedamount0fcompensation,theamountofintereston the enhanced amount of compensation may be qtiantlfled m this appeat itself. 17) Constdering all the relevant aspeGls ofthe''matter, mcludtog thedelayindispt^lWtheGlaimpeWcmarKllhepresCTrtappeal;^ and the fact fhat the tnsurance Company atone is not to be blamed Iwtheentiredelayinthematter.vwquantitytheamount of interest on the enhanced amount of compenisation of Rs.1^1,50W-at Rs.9,500/-. 18) For the foF^olng reasons, the appeal flled. t^ ttre appellants/ claimants fcff enftanGen^ ofWe com^^ allowed tn part; The compensation of Rs.1,S3,SOQ^awaFctetfby the Tribunal is enhanced to Rft2,S5,OOQ& wtUl fiwther quarttifled amount of tnterest of Rs.9,500/- on the enttanced amom'rt of eompensationofRs.1,01,500^-. . 19) R^»rKlentNo.3TheOriental lnsuran<»GompanylJnRitecl is granted three months' time for depositing the tcrtal sum oif 1%s.1,11,0001- (Rs.1,01^500/- taiwrairds CTiharu^tf annount of compensaUon + Rs.^SO^towarcls^tanUfiedamountofinter^ 1111:llti (S, \ rV^: ^i' :1^! ;| ' :- • ;' ns ii '^sSSSSh, h ^^^';..:^ .'i; •^^ ^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^SS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^S^j^ subbu on the enhahcetf amount pf connpehsrtipn of Rs.1,01,5(X}/-) beforethe ooncemlngCtaimsTribunal. y3) No^relerasto co^s. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge •'••fli.1...