^ G-^ ^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH M.AJCt N0. AT BILASPUR ?^x% /2008 Divislon APPELLANT RESPONDENT N0. 1 / OWNER RESPONDENTS /^ 1] CLAIMANTS •^^ ^ ':^^' %f.M' M-"" \^^' 3] ^ L '• Sandeep Kumar S/o. Gopi Kishan Maheshwari aged about : 35 years, R/o. Durg Road, Infront of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Sharda Wd/o Khileshwar Verma, aged about: 25 years, Kumari Mukeshwari D/o. Khileshwar Verma, aged about: 5 years, through her natural guardian / mother Smt. Sharda Bai, Wd/o. Khileshwar Verma, aged about : 25 years, Keshav Kumar S/o. Khileshwar Verma aged about : 3 years, through his natural guardian / mother Smt. Sharda Bai, Wd/o. Khileshwar Verma, aged about : 25 years, All above R/o. Village : Kanera, Post Kanera, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.). 4] The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional. Office P.B. 51, Malviya Nagar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5] Smt. Mantora W/o. Ramdhan Verma, aged about : 45 years, R/o. Village : Kandayi, Post Ninva, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G) 6] Ramdhan S/o. Firanta Verma, aged about : 50 years, R/o. Village : Kandayi, Post Ninva, y 1- Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G) (Respondent No. 4, 5 8& 6 are respondents / Non- applicant. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT Compensation praved before tribunal Rs. 17,43.000/- fi^eeJltW^<?J^Amount awarded bv tribunal Rs.4.46.500/- _.^^___^^^__^-____^..^^.._:,^-_^^^ ^ a*"T 0^( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BZLASPUR M.A.C. No. 1028/2008 APPELLANT Sandeep Kumar Versus RI^PONDBNTS Snit. Sharda and others DB'.- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL AND HON»BLESHRI GULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ PRESENT :- Shri Maiioj Pai'anjpe with Shi-i Vaibhav Goverdhaii,, Advocates for the appellant. Shi'i Sanjay S. Agrawal^ Adv. for the respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Manish Upadhyay, Adv. for the respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (23-6-2011) 1. This is owner's appeal agamst the award dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beiuetara Distt. Durg in Claim Case No. 2/2007 wherby and whereunder an aiuount of Rs. 4,46,500/~ has been awm'ded tn favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3/ claimants holding appellant/owner liable for its payineut, 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 28-9-2006 Ktuleshwar (since deceased) along wifh one Deendayal was rerunning to his home on motor cycle bearing registration No. CG-07-F/7951 and neai' vmage Dhamdha, he met with an accident. as a result of which both died. The claimants being wiclow and chHdren of deceased Khileshwar Verma, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly the Act?) claiming Rs. 17,43,000/- as compensation for tlie death of fhe deceased. 3. Leained Tiibunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, assessed income ofthe deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deductiiig l/3rd of it towards personal ^ osoqM o^dood Qtp jo UOIIOQS B O^ J3I[9J Q^BTpQUIUI? JO ^UBjg JOJ p9^QBU9 <SUq^ tfSBMV-e9I HOI^OQg •g^ -: jspun SB 99 pTie gi. TQied ui ppq saq ^jnoQ 9ui9jdng 9iq,uoH qoiqA m 'ggg OOS (s)l700S ui psijodsj •pn •oo souejnsui Bipui ps^iufi -A- mos reqqqsijio yedo9Q jo 9SB3 UT ^moQ smQjdng 9Lp Aq psynss ^p^9j[e si ^uiod QAOq^ QV^. UO AIBI SB ^TJamjO pTOA9p 81 9UIBS Olp 'pQlUQOUOO si adftiBJBj uqg ^q pasrej uoi^sanb ^sjg sq^ s^ .rej og •{Bunquj, sq^jo pjoooj 9qi posnjsd pue ssi^iBd 9ip joj psunoo pQUJBQY pJBQq 9ABq 3A\ •p9U§ndmiP.TBMB 9tp ^joddns pinoAi ^ 'o^ ^uspuodssj QLp JOJ pSUUOO p9UJB3{ <SAB^qpBdf[ qSIUB]^ Ijqg •90U9J9JJ^UI ATB JOJ ^O ^OU ssop pue Q^qBUOSBQj pue ^suf si {euuqujL ^IT^ Aq pQp.ieMB ^unoirre sip ^BI^ ^imqns jeipjnj pinoM QH '^uappoB JGJ siqisuodssj sBMjpsmiq p9s^909p gtisqA^ QSBO sip ui UQAS siq^ure^ureui si uirep ^oy QT-n jo V-S9T uoposs J^pun ^Tmqns pinoM pUB p.reAYC Qtp ^ioddns P{UOAI s^ueinrep Qip JGJ psunoo p9UJB9{ ^A J§V 'S ABfUBS Ijqg 'pueq jai^o 9tp UQ •p93np9j 4cl^Tns sq o^ S9AJ9S9p qoiqA spis J9ii§iquo Ai§up^ooqs ST pspjBMB ^unoure 9Tp ^BI^ sn§jB jQLpjnj ppioM QH "aiqBureiuTem ^ou si ^oy 31-p jo y-g9i uoi^osg J9pini s^imuiTBp 9Lp Aq p9ig mrep aq^ 'sjojajsq^ prre apAojo^om sqi §uiAup UI ^U3§I{§9U SBM J[9SUIiq pQSBOOQp Qq] ^nqns P[?IOM •^uunsddB 9ip joj psunoo pauuBoi 'adltiejud fouBn ijqg •uonBsusdmoo SB -/OOS'91^^ *SJ J° ICTHS p^Ol B pQpJCAie SULp pLIC spB9q jsq^o uo -/OOQ'i^T 'SH jo mns v pspjBAve jsq^mj saq reunquj, psiiresq '-/OOO'SC'i^ "SH SB ^uspiisdsp jo ssoi SPJBMO^ uo^susdmoo pQsssssa pWB 8T jo jsnd^nm ponddB ^usppo^ jo smp si^ ys sjeaA 95 SB pssBsoap ^VQ. J.O 9§B 9tp 0-t 8up[ooi '-/000't^S 'SH SB Xou9pU3d9p JO SSO^ XIJBQA pQSSQSSB <;p9SU939p 9L[} JO S9SU3dXQ '8 'L 43' ,^'^':-:^t, ^4"\ ':^ '•%, . 1 ^ ... JJ v%.s:y <^;'a ^•::K:^ ^Si^ i 3 cy,^ annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in teniis of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be pald on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also fhe other factors relevant fherefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and flnal settlenient of fhe claim as would appear from the different colmnns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim m nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents niakes the position furthermore clear statiiig that from the total amount of compensation one-fhird thereof is to be reduced in consideratiou of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards inaintaintag himself had he been alive- This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. 2 to 6 fhereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the ainount of conipensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the dnver of fhe motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a niotor vehicle. 66. We may notice ttiat Section 167 of tlie Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claica of compensation under fhe Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains dtfferent expressions as, for exam.ple, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or BT 4 ofhenvise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstandmg anything contaiaed ia this Act or iii any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show fhat tlie ParliaQient mtended to insert a non-obstante clause of wide natiu-e which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in fhe said Act or any other law for fhe time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on fhe part of the victtm. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of." 9. In view of above legal position, it is cleai' fhat claim petition under Section 163-A is mamtainable even tf the deceased was negligent. 10. Now we shall examine the amount of compensation awarded by fhe Tribunal. The Tribiinal has taken monthly ir.-come of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-; and on re- appreciation of the evidence we do not find any iUegality in the above finding of the Tribunal. Lookuig to the age of the deceased as 26 years, learned Tribunal has applied inultiplier of 18 which is strictiy m accordance with IInd Schedule of the Act. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the submission of Shri Paranjpe that the amount awarded is shockingly on higher side, 11. For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge T:y