HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C.J. 6n \g HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KIHVIAR SINHA J. CORAM: Misc. Agpeal No. 17 of 2002 Ku. Rashim and another Vs. Miraz Ahmad and others 85 connected Appeals — M.A.Nos.18/2002 and M.A. 23/2002 JUDGMENT For consideration #__L__ Sd/- J; Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPT Q A \J KWQ;L ' u Sd/_ Chief ‘ Justice f g l Post for Judgment : 4/08/2009 r Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha nag- Judge i H“ ‘ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 81. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 APPELLANTS Ku. Rashim, aged about 4 1/2 years, Daughter of Late Rajendra Singh Kothari, Minor, through the natural guardian and elder Father (Bada Papa, Elder brother of applicant’s father) Kanhaiya Lal Ji Kothari, s/o Kanwar Lal Kothari, R/ o Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G). Krishna Devi Kothari, w/o Kanwar Lal Ji Kothari, aged 74 years, resident of Village Jaalbandha, Post Bijetala, Tahsil Kheragarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. Versus Miraz Ahmed, son of Abdul Kayyim, C/o M/s. Steel Trading Company, GE. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Evarn C/o Steel Transport, Bhanpuri,‘ Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Owner of Truck No.23 B— 0571y Suhail Ahmed, son of Sagir Ahmed, R/o Bilaigarh, Thana Rajganjpur, Distt. Sundergarh (Orissa) 85 c/o Steel Transport Bhanpuri, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (DRIVER OF VEHICLE No. /TRUCK No. M323— B/O571t The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Type Division 121400, New India Centre, l7-A, Kuprej Road, Mumbai 400 O39 (insurance Company of Vehicle No. M.P. 23B 0571L RESPONDENTS 2 Misc. Appeal N0. 17 of2002, 18/2002 & 23/2002 gé Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2002 1. Ku. Rashim, aged about 4 1/2 APPELLANTS years, Daughter of Late Rajendra Singh Kothari, Minor, through the natural guardian and elder Father (Bada Papa, Elder brother of applicant’s father) Kanhaiya Lal Ji Kothari, s/o Kanwar Lal Kothari, R/ o Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G). 2. Krishna Devi Kothari, w/o Kanwar Lal Ji Kothari, aged 74 years, resident of village Jaalbandha, Post Bijetala, Tahsil Kheragarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Miraz Ahmed, son of Abdul Kayyim, C/o M/s. Steel Trading Company, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Evam C/o Steel Transport, Bhanpuri, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Owner of Truck No.23 B— o571y 2. Suhail Ahmed, son of Sagir Ahmed, R/o Bilaigarh, Thana Rajganjpur, Distt. Sundergarh (Orissa) 8r, c/o Steel Transport Bhanpuri, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (DRIVER OF VEHICLE M.P.23— N0¢TRUCK Na B/O571). 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Type Division 121400, New India Centre, 17—A, Kuprej Road, Mumbai 400 O39 (insurance Company of Vehicle No. M.P. 23B 0571L “5‘; 3 Misc. A eal N0. 17 0f2002 18/2002 & 23/2002 @ Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2002 APPELLANTS 1. Ku. Rashim, aged about 4 1/2 years, Daughter of Late Rajendra Singh Kothari, Minor, through the natural guardian and elder Father (Bada Papa, Elder brother of applicant’s father) Kanhaiya Lal Ji Kothari, s/o Kanwar Lal Kothari, R/ o Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G). r t Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Miraz Ahmed, son of Abdul Kayyum, C70 M/s. Steel Trading Company, ”GE. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Evam C/o Steel Transport, Bhanpuri, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Owner of Truck No.23 B— 0571) 2. Suhail Ahmed, son of Sagir Ahmed, R/o Bilaigarh, Thana Rajganjpur, Distt. Sundergarh (Orissa) 8L c/o Steel Transport Bhanpuri, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO./TRUCK No. M.P.23— B/O571). 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Type Division 121400, New India Centre, 17—A, Kuprej Road, Mumbai 400 O39 (insurance Company of Vehicle No. M.P. 23B 05711 (APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) Appearance: Smt. Renu Kochar Counsel for the appellants/ claimants. '\' \ Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents 1 85 2. 4 Misc. Appeal No. 17 0f2002, 18/2002 & 23/2002 JUDGMENT (o4 08.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed these appeals for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Second Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, on 25th of August, 2001. M.A.No. 17/2002 has been filed against the award passed in Claim Case No.92/1991; M.A.No.l8/2002 has been filed against the award passed in Claim Case No.90/91; and M.A.No.23/2002 has been tiled against the award passed in Claim Case No.87/1991. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:— The persons namely Rajendra Kothari, Premlatha Kothari, Richa Kothari, Mahendra Kothari, Ruchi @ Rinki Kothari and Ajit Kothari lost their lives in a motor accident which took place on 14.07.1990 when the Maruti Car, in which, they were traveling with appellant/claimant Ku. Rashim who also received personal injuries, was dashed by the offending Vehicle/Truck bearing Regn. No. M.P.23— B/0571, on account of rash and negligent driving of the said Truck by its driver. Claim Case No.92 /9l was filed on account of death of Ku. Rinki @ Ruchi, a minor girl aged about 5 years, who was sister of the appellant Rashmi, in which, she claimed a compensation of Rs.l5 lakhs. Claim case No.90/91 was filed on account of death of Ku. Richa, a minor girl aged about 7 years, who was also the sister of appellant Rashim, in which, she claimed a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and Claim Case No.87/ 1991 was filed on accOunt of death of 5 Misc. A eal N0. 17 of 2002 18/2002 & 23/2002 @ Master Mahim @ Pintoo, a minor boy aged about 2 years who was the brother of appellant Rashim, in which she Claimed compensation of R320 lakhs. A11 the claim petitions were filed u/ s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded the findings that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck by its driver and the insurer of the Truck i.e., New India Insurance Company Limited/ respondent no.3 was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal further held Vide Para 38 s 4 of the Award that it was not possible to compute the income of the deceased children, therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/— as the amount of compensation in each case. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. l3) Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) argued that the Tribunal erred in law in awarding, low compensation of Rs.27,000/— in each case. (4) On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/Insurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award commonly passed by the Tribunal in all these cases. (5) We haye heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also. perused the records of the respective claim cases.- (6) In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —vs- Syed Ibrahim and others, (200]) 11 S.C.C. 512, the deceased was a child aged about 7 years. Considering the material on record, the 1 \ i 6 Misc. Appeal N0. 17 of 2002, 18/2002 & 23/2002 Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,500/— as compensation. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,52,000/— and the insurer was directed to indemnify the award. In the appeal filed by the insurer, the Apex Court observed in Para 10 as under: “10. In cases 0f young children of tender age, in View of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances 0f advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased Child capable of assessment on estimated basis nor is the financial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation.” (7) In the matter of Lata Wadhwa V. State ofBihar, (2001) 8 SCC, 197, the Apex Court while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children falling within the age group of 5—10 years and age group of 10-15 years. The said judgment was taken note of by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Ibrahim (Supra) and the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was maintained. (8) The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident ,.\ \ cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the . Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable” X / @ Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2002, 18/2002 & 23/2002 compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the Victim, The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any’ 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, The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non— arbitrariness. Please see State of Hamana and another —Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others {2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others -vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1 999) 1 SCC 90. (9) In the present case, admittedly, the deceased children were aged about 5 years, 7 years and 2 years respectively. Therefore, with a View to award just and reasonable compensation, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/— more in each case inclusive of interest component, as the enhanced amount of compensation to appellant/ claimant Rashim on account of death of her two minor sisters and a brother in the motor accident. The ”\’ \enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 25,000/— in each case 8 Misc. Apgeal N0. 17 of 2002, 18/2002 & 23/2002 shall be deposited by the New India Insurance Campany Limited within a period of 3 months from today before the concerned Claims Tribunal, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum for the period commencing after completion of 3 months till its realization. (10) The appeals are. allowed to the extent indicated above. /Rao/ (11) There shall be no order as to cost(s). i Sdl- ,‘ Sdl~ ‘ 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice Judge 7