F ^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH : BILASRUR r^.h SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLESHRIR.L.JH^NV^ft.Jl ^-;:::^".' ;::'i:;;:^;%\:::;: APPELLANTS Applicants RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Misc. ApDeaKaNo. 1157^007 1. Maniram Netam, s^@ BeeFararftNeNpa, aged atowA^Syeaxs^ .'":'""',^f; 2. Smt. Sanwarin Netam w/o "Manirafft Netem,a9edabout4tyearSt 3 Ku. Ramila Netam, Q/o Maniram Netam.agedaboutlSyears. Through her Legal Guardian Manirpm Netam 4 Smt. Junay Netam, Wd/o Late Ramchandra Netem, Aged afctOUt 19 years All above R/ovillage Pandeypapa, Bade ^ Rajpur, fost Bade Rajpur, PolN^ s Station Vishrampuri, Tahsil KeshM, DistrictBastar (CG) VERSUS 1 Devendra Sethiya, S/Q Ratman^efl'ii)®, Aged about 30 years, Fi^ t^e Rig^iar, Police StsAion Vishrampvri, Tahstt Koncla9aon,DistrictBaster<CG) Driver & Owner 2 The United India Insurance iGorRpany Limited, Branch Jagdatpur.^^^^^^ Bastar.(CG) , -....' ' - ;-. -.•1-.,;1; .;:.....';,rf'',;::' 3 Jugdhar Singh, s/o Nandyramy f%69 Village Farasgaon, Bazarpat?, 'G^rl^ Bastar(CG):l 1-—-11..- ! •.,,-.. l.-.:.^..-^ —t- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THEMOTOR. VlHiCLESACT.1988 ;ll:::'''i'>::""''; ": -—-^ ,_ .^<^i Appearance: Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri Varunendra Mishra.counsel for responctentno.1. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Gounsel for respondent No«2. Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for respondent No^* -« ORDER (l-e.08.2010) c^27 R-L.Jhanwar, J Appellants are seeking enhancement of the <;onf^)0ns%|B@n a\yarded by the Additional Motor Aceidente Claims Tribynal (FT^, Kond|a^aoR, Bastar (for short 'the Tribunal') v'lde award dated 31.7.1997, passed in Claim Case No. 50/2007. 2. Theappellant^laJiTmntsfiledaclampetitionunderSecticm^ the Motor VehiclesAct, claiming compensation ofRs.40,8©,OOP/-forthe death of Ramchandra Netam in a motor accident, which |<^ plaicie on 9.12.2004when he wasgoing in the Tractor Trolly for doing labour work. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the Tractor Trolly, bearing registration No.CG (^A^)63^€lueto which he fell down from the Tractor Trelly and sustained yieyoustiiunes and succumbed fo those injuries. The appellante pteaded tiat tti® deceased was aged about22 years and he vwis eaming Rs.3SO/*pe^day and Rs.24,000/- from his fields and thereby, he was eaming Rs.6SW3©/-per morrth. • ! ' ! ! ' ,- ! ! ! 11,1 :-1^::-—-.'-. - ^ ^ 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the er^re eyidenGeJed t:y<|ie parties held that deceased was earning Rs.TOA- perdsy and wa&wwMng for only 45 days peryear and thereby was eaming Rs.31^" pejr^ear, The TribunaJ appHed a multiplier of 18 to themonttily incQme an^NteF deducting ^13 towards personal expenses of ttie (^eased, woi|l^o^ 37,800/- annual dependency of the appellants. The Tribunal awarded .^"^ ,. T., ^ .^-.fe. •/&&^a %s^i i Rs.17000/- under other heads and a total sum of Rs;54.8QO^ WIK awarded as compensation to the appetlante forthe death ofRainchandra Netam in the accident. The Tribunal also av^irded jnterest @6%p.atf0iii the said amount of compensation< 4. Learned counsel for the appetlants submjttedthat J|i®de©eisisecl^^ sustajned grievous injuries on his head, back, chest and variou& |Kart& oC the body and succumbed to those in|ures. The a(»ident,topkpl|^©R^^^^ account of rash and negligent driving ofthe drlver of the TraGfipr^anit ; Trolly, due to which, the deceased fell ctown from ttie TrajBtor Tr^ argued that the deceased was going for dping labpurworkand<hef6|Eire^ respondent No.lAlrwer and owner was responsible for payn^nt of compensation on account ofthe saidaccident. The Tractpr anclTrol^wis ^ also insured with the Untted hidia Insurance (^mpany ymrfeed. Hej^ that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence led by the appellat^te and assessed a low income ofthe dec^ed and thereby av^rded tf^eiy low compensation on account of such grievous and negtigent act of tt» drive^wner ofthe Tractor and Trolly. He submittedtiatthis is notacase of accident of where the vehicle has dashed to other, but it is a ©as®of rash and negligent driving of the driver due to which, the^leceasecl who was sitting inside it, fell down from ttie Tractor andfrcrfly, p^utted Irato his * death on the spot. He submitted th^the deceaseclwas th&entfyearRingt** member in the family. ; 5. The respondents have denied all the feu^ in theb* wrtt^ statement. Respondent No.1 stated that the ac^ident Its^ not Itaken ptfaee ?, on accountofhis negligence. RespondentNo.2 hass8tstedtli^ttie<M^ was not havingvalid licence at the timeofaecident. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, pewsed fl'ee Ninpuspied -: award and record ofthe Tribunal. 7. On close scrutiny of the evidence, <t is ctear that ttie accideot had - occurred due to rash and negljgent drMng ofthe drhrer/Gwner. Th< ...^" ' lt-" I•^, .:^'' "?>.; ^y vehicle was sold to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2'<tnsuranGe Company has been exonerated as ttiere was a breach of policy. Therefbre, respondents No. 1 and 3 are liable for p^ment of compensation as the accidenttook place due to rash and negligerrtaet <rf the respondents. 8. It is evident from the statement of Maniram- fattier of the d<^ease^ that he is an agriculturist and he has someagriculturat land in Ns name. Deceased-Ramchandra was also working in hls agricultural land attd 'IASIS helping him in the agriculturalwork. ttseems that his pai'ente wera^iot dependent on the deceased-Ramchandra and Vneywere having thrt^own income. In this way, it is clear that Claimant No.3- sisterofthe deceasod was also not dependent on ttie deceased because her father and mother are alive. No doubt, that wife of fihe deceased is the dependent of the deceased. So far as the respondent No.3 is concerned, it is clearthat ste has not produced any document relating to selling the said vehicle. Therefbre, he is also liable to pay the compensationjoinUyandseveratly. 9. After looking to the circumstances and eyidence led by tii®parti«B and considering the facts, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced ameunt of compensation would make the compensation ofRs.54,80CV- awaided by the Tribunal just and proper compensation in the present case. ; 10. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhanceraeRt of the compensation, therefore, isallowed in part. Theappellants/claimante are awarded further sum of Rs.51,000/- indusiveof interestcomponenton the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the syin of Rs.54,800/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 11. Respondents No. 1 and 3 are granted three months' -ttme for depositing the sum of Rs.51 ,000/- before the conceming ClaimsTribunat. 12. No order as to costs. l Sd/- ^•L. Jhanwar Judge