c^^ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No . ^ OF 2008 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Sant Kumar Patel,agedabout 31 years, S/0 late Keshav Lal Patel, R/0'VillageGudrudih, Police Station- ^ ..^,J^A Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund, [^••('y C'^^...--" ,^ (C.G.) ,^s%^ ^y".^ ^ ^<- VE RSUS ^^ RESPONDENTS :^t. Hakim Singh, aged about 66 ^ rN-NON-CLAIMANTS years S/OShriVJchitar Singh, R/0 Village- Kumudpan, PoliceStatJon- ChalwandiPai, District- Firozpur,(Punjab). Presently R/0 Andal Road, Quarter No. 166/1 Gesekin, B. Garden, District- Howrah, (West Bengal) 2. Ajmer Singh, S/0 Unknown, R/0 166/1, AndalRoad, Post- B7~Garden Gesekin, Distrtct- Howrah,(West Bengal) RegisLei ed- owner of offending vehJde(Truck No.W.B. ll-A/7252)" ^ 3< National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Ground Floor,19, R.N.Mukherji Road, Kolkata,(W.B.) (Insurerof (Truck No. W.B.ll/A/7252) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACT. ^.' <^ HIQK COURT OF CHHATTXSaARH AT B2LASPUR M.A. iCI N©.846 OF 2008 4^. Saiii Kaiaax- Palel Versiis Hakiiu Siiigli aiid olliciB. APPBLLANT^ CLAIMASST RBSPOHDENTS/' WOW-CLAIMANTS AFPBAL UNDBR SBCTIOH 173 OF MQTOR VBHICLB8 ACT. 1988 Siusde Beaea; Kott'ble Stei G. Miahaittddin, J. PreseBt: Shri Smiil Sahu,.counsel for tfae appellaat, Shri Daslirath Gupta, counsel for respondents No,3- ORAI-J3RDBR (Passed on 2nd day ofNovemfeer, 2011) Tliis appeal lias been filed uiider Scctioii 173 of the Motor Veliicles Act'(for short 'tlie ActJ) agaliist flie .liiipugnecl awaixl dated 10-03-2008 passed 'by the Priiic4>al Motor AccMeiit CIaiBis Tnbuiial, .Maliasamuiid (&r short the 'Claims Tribiinal') iii Claim Case No. 13/2007 'by -the appellaD.t/clalmant fbr eiiliaiiceixieat of aaiouiit of coiiipensatk?n. 2. Brlef facts of the case as piDJected by ttie appellaiit/claiinaiit aie tiiat on 25-12-2006 at about 2-00 P.M., the deceased Smt. Hemkuniari was traveluig on tlie inotorcycle (Herohonda Spleader) beaiiiig registratioii No. C.G. 06-A/6442 along with lier husbaad/clainiant froin Raipur to tlieir vlllage Giidrudlli as pillloii rider. On tiie way, neai" Aai'-aag Biis Staiid 011 Natioaal Highway No.6, tiie ofFeadiiig vehicle Truclc beariiig registiaticsii No, W.B.ll- A/7252y which was driven by respoiident No. 1, caoie fh>Bi behiiid ia a rasli aiid negllgent -luaixner, dashed tlie iiiotorcycle aa a res'alt of which she was crushed uiicler tiie truck aiid died 011 tlie spot. Report of tfie iiicideut was given to fhe Police Statioiiy Aaraag aiid a crime was registei^d agamst the non-applicao.t No.l/driver uader Sectious 279,337 aad 304-A of tlie IPC and aiter mvcstlgatioa, chai-ge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fii'st Class, Raipur. 3. The appellaiit/claliiiaiit beiag legal heir of flie deceased liad filed a claiiii petitioii uuder Secpon 166 of the Act before fhe Clamis ^ ^ Tribunal claimiiig a total aixiouut of cojoipeAisatioii ofRs.30,10,000/- oii account ofujitimely death oftlie deceased Hemkumaii 111 a motor accident, who is wlfe of appellaiit/claim.aiit. The said ofieiidiiig vehicle Truck was being driven an fhe date ofaccMent Le. ori 25-12- 2006, by respoudent No. 1 Hakim. Siiigli aiid ownecl by respoiiderAt No. 2 whicli was iiisurecl at flie relevaiit time with flie Insuraiice CoBipajiiy/respoiident No.3. 4. I have heard leaiTied counsel for tlie pailies and peruaed tlie record ofthe Claims Tribuiial as also fhe iaipugned award. 5. The contention offlie learned counsel for fhe appeHaat i^ tliat tlie Clalms Trlbuaal has comiaitted a gross eiix>r iii assessiiig tlie liiontlily income of tiie deceased Siiit HeBiku£iaaxi as R8,1500/- because the deceased was aged 30 years aiid ia additiou to dischargiiig the household duties, slie was assistmg her husbaiid/cla i rnaiit iii Idraiia shop bzisiiiess aiid cigriculture. He lias further coatended tiiat at least her iiicofiie ought to have beea assessed at Rs.3000/- per Bioiitli aiid the uaultiplier applled by tlie Claims TiTouiial is on tiie lower side which ought to h&ve beeii 17 aa per die law laid down by tiie HonTjle Suprenie Court in flie case of Sarla VermxM. (Bmt) ar&ct ethcrs i^^ Bclhi TfWtBp^rt C^fp^ratiwt an& Another, reported m AIR 2009 SC 3104, on fhis grouiid, Uie leained couiisel for fhe appellaat has contended fliat flie aiiiouiit of coBipensatioxi needs to be substantiatly enhaiiced. 6. On fhe otlier haiid, leained couiisel for lespondexit No.S/Insuaiice Couapany has supported tlie impugaed award aad has conteiided tiiat tiie deceased Hemkuiiiai'i was not haviiig aiiy regulai" soui'ce of iiicome aiid Uierefore, fhe iacoiiie assessed as Rs.1500/- per moB.th by fhe Claims Tribunal is quite legal aad piuper aiid calls for no iiiterfereiice. He ha^ fuillier conteiided fliat flie possiblllty oftlie appellaiit/claiiiiaiit uiarxyiag agalu is tfaere aad flierefore, tlie amount of coaipensation whicli lias been awarded is quite just aiid proper iii tlie totality offacts aiid cii'ciim.staaces offlie case, 7. The Clamas Tribunal has assessed tlie montlily iiicome oftlie deceased HeEakuBiari as Rs.1500/- aad after deductiag l/3rd ie. Rs. 500/ - per iiiontli towards her pei'sonal aiid 11-virig expeases has ^p £-..• -^ assessecl tlie loss of ijLionflily clepeiidency as Rs.1000/- aiicl aiiiiual loss ofdepenclency as Rs. 12,000/ -. The Clamis Tribunal lias applied flie iiiultlpller of 12 aad on tliat basis tlie total loss of dependency has been calculated as Rs. 1,44,000/-. In addition to tliis, flie Clalnis Trlbiuial lias graated Rs.2000/- towai'ds fuiieral expenses aiid Rs,2000/- towards loss of consortiiini as sucli a total amo'tirAt of coiiipensation of Rs. 1,48,000/- with iiiterest @ 6% per aiiD.um aiid iii case of failui'e of payliig flie said amouiit wltliiii a period of oiie luonfli flie respondents are Uable to pay iiiterest @ 12% per £ainujQi oii fhe awarded amouiit of compensation. 8. The age oftlie deceased Heinkuiiiaii has been assessed as 30 year's and tlie age ofher Irasbaiid/claloiaiit has beea sho\¥ii as 31 year-s. Tlie deceased was defiiiitely rendering her sei-vices to her husbaad as hls wlfe, io. addition to dischargiag ofher household cluties. In respect of wlte/iuoflier wlio tloes not have a regulai' mcome, tlie Honlble Supreme Court lii tlie case .of i?s< Nati^mal 'C^ LM. ©tfeers,'reported m (2010) 9 SCC 218, has observed in pai'a 35 as uiider: "It Is highly uiifaii^ unjust ao.d iiiappropiiate to coiapute the coiapensation payable to the dependants of a deceased wtfe/mother, who does not have a regular income, by comparing her services with fh.at of a housckccpcr or a scn^ant or aa cmploycc, who works for a lixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife/motlier to the husbaad and chUdrcu caanot be equated wifh the services of aii employee aad no evMence or data caa possibly be produced for estiinatmg fhe value of such services. It is virtually impossible to iiieasure in terms of money the loss of personal care axid attention suffcrcd by fhc husbaiid aad childrcn 021 thc dcxaisc of fhe housewtte/' 9. In view of the above, assessiiig the iiiontlily iD.coiiie of tlie cleceased Heisikuinaii wlio was a house wife aiid was also assistiiig her husband/clamiaiit iii his kli-a£ia shop busiiiess aiid agricultare as Rs. 1500/- per inonth is defliiitely on the lower side, looldag to the dally wages wliich aii mi-skllled labour is gettiiig, it would be appropriate to assess fhe iiiontlily income of fhe deceased Hemkumari as Rs.2500/-, It is aot iii dispute tiiat tiie appellaiit/claiijaaat aiid tiie deceased wei~e issueless, fherefore, 50% wltl have to be deducted towards personal an^l liviiig expeiises offiie //'^ "% l' '"'^:%1 J ;^ ^... .^ ^" ^^^ '"-i^37-r?&^ ^ Lv- deceased aiid the reniaiiiio.g 50% caii be taken as loss of dependency to tlie appeUaiit/clamiaiit, as such flie aairaal iiiconie of tlie deceased coiiies to Rs.30,000/-/ After deductmg 50^o towards her (cleceasecl) personal and living expeiises, tlie aiiaual loss of dependency to tiie appellaiit/clalmaiit coijies to Rs,15,000/-. For applyiiig fhe appropriate jiiultlpller, tlie age of flie appellaiit/hiisbaiid lias to be takeii into coiisicleratioii which is 31 yeai-s, as per the law lald down iix.flie case of Scirta Fter^ria (Sfnt} ^thers ^s* Delhi Trwzsp^rt C^rp^rcstl^n aiid An^ther-; reported iii AIR 2009 8C 3104, multiplier of 16 has to be applied by uaultiplying tiie ao.uual loss of depexidency i.e. 15,000 X 16 = 2,40,000. In addltioB. to tliis, flie appeUaiit/claimaiit wlll be entltled to Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses aiid Rs.5000/- eacli towards loss of consortiuni mid loss of estate, which tlie total amouat of compensatiou comes to Rs,2,55,000/~. The Clalols Tribuaal lias awaixled iiiterest @ 6% per aiinum froni tlie date of presentation of tbie clalm petltion tUl its reallzatiou aiid has fartiier oixlered fliat iii case the aiuount of coBipeiisation along wifh. iiiterest is not paid witliiu a period of one iiaonfh, flien tlie respondents shaU be Mable to pay @ iy/o per aiiiium froiii the date ofaward,, as s~uch the Claims Tribuiial has awaided penal iiiterest wliich is against tlie law laid down by tiie Horit)le Supreiiie Court iii tlie case of N^iUwtal C@, LM. I/B» reported io. A£R2004 SC 1581 aiid hence the sanie is llable to be set aslde aiid tlie appellaat/claiBiaiit shall be entlfled to get ixiterest @ 6% per aiinuiii on tiie amount of couapensation Le. Rs.2,55,000/- froiii tlie clate of filla-g tiie clalm petltion till its realizatlon. 10. In fhe result, the appeal is pailly aUowed aacl the appellao.t/claimant is entitled to a coiiipeAisation ofRs,2,55,000/- iii place ofRs. 1,48,000/-. Iii addition to tliis,, the appellaiit/claimaiit is eiitifled to iiiterest @ 6% per aiinum on tlie aiiiount of coiiipeiisatioii froiD. tlie date offlling ofthe claim petltion tUl its reallzatioii. 11. Accordiiigly, tlie amozuit ofawaixl is enliao.ced aiid aiodiGficl to flie above extent. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge Kvr