HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1430 of2008 "u\\ APPELLANTS Himanshu Sharma and others RESPONDENTS Versus Manthir Sahu and another AWARD For consideration j_-12-2011 Hon'ble Shri Justice RajeevGyeta J "•}^JL Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Post for pronouncement of Award: ^,-12-2011 Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1430 of 2008 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-clairaants 1. Himanshu Sharma, S/o Late Keshlal Sharma, aged about 1 1/2 years, minor through his natural guardian mother Smt. Godawari Sharma, W/o Late Keshlal Sharma, aged about 27 years, Shiksha Karmi, R/o Arajkund, Police Station Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon. 2. Smt. Godawari Sharma, aged about 27 years, Widow of Late Keshlal Sharma, Police Station Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon. 3. Bhuwanlal Sharma, S/o Late Pilalal Sharma, aged about 65 years. 4. Smt. Pushpadevi Sharma, W/o Bhuwanlal Sharma, aged about 60 years. All R/o Village Arajkund, Police Station Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon. Versus 1. Manthir Sahu, S/o Late Jethuram Sahu, agd about 52 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Serikhedi, Police Station Mandir Haisad, District Raipur (C.G._ 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE^MOTOR VEHICLES ACT f^" ^ fc Coram: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J ^ PRESENT:- Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for the appellants. Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel for the respondents. AWARD (Passedon ^ -12-2011) Per N.K. Aearwal, J. This is claimants9 appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal9) vide its award dated 02.07.2008 in Claim Case No.48/2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.25,50000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow, minor child and parents of deceased - Keshlal Sharma by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 05.02.2007, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to collision between the Indigo Car bearing registration No.C.G.04-E/1200 being driven by respondent No.l and Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.08/E-1531 being driven by ^1 // deceased himself; deceased - Keshlal Sahu died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident; both deceased as well as respondent No.l contributed to the cause of accident in the ratio of 30:70; assessed the total compensation of Rs.1,57,000/-; deducted Rs.47,000/- of it towards 30% contributory negligence pf deceased and awarded Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. 4. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant negligent for cause of accident and in reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of 30%; in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- only; and in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for respondents would support the impugned award and would submit: looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal rightly held the appellant responsible for the accident to the extent of 30% and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perysed the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. rL% |NWIWNllillii|««iTOu^{ ~v 7. We shall first examine whether or not the finding of Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of deceased - Keshlal Sharma is sustainable in law. 8. Appellants/claimants examined Mansukh Tiwari (A.W.2) as eye witness. As per his statement para - 4, the questioned accident had occurred at the time when Keshlal Sharma was crossing G.E. Road and coming towards the house of this witness. Respondent No.l i.e. driver of Indigo Car examined himself as N.A.W. 1. According to his statement para - 1, he was driving the Indigo Car bearing registration No.C.G.04-E/1200 at a moderate speed and going from Raipur from Chhuria. Near village Kohka, motorcycle driver, in order to save one cyclist, suddenly came on his wrong side i.e from left to right and dashed the Indigo Car. His above statement para -1 is also supported by the suggestion of the appellants. In reply to the suggestion put by the appellants, respondent No.l admitted in para - 9 of his statement that motor cyclist was crossing the road to save the cyclist. Spot map Ex.P.6 also supported the above version. 9. The offending Indigo Car was running on the main road, and therefore, the deceased driving a motor cycle wanted to cross the road, is required to take care of any other vehicle coming or running on the main road. It appears, deceased Keshlal Sharma took sudden turn and that led to accident. It ^ is equally true that whenever a person drives on the main road, he is also required to see persons or vehicles crossing the road. Thus, it appears that deceased was negligent as he suddenly started crossing the road without following traffic rules and without caring about offending Indigo Car approaching on the spot and driver of offending Indigo Car was also negligent in not taking care of vehicle crossing the road. 10. In view of above, the approach of the Tribunal in holding contributory negligence of motorcyclist to the extent of 30% and that of driver of Indigo Car to the extent of 70% cannot be found fault with and the Tribunal has not erred in deducting 30% amount of compensation towards contributory negligence of deceased Keshlal Sharma. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by Shri Sanjeev Banjare that the Tribunal has erred in holding deceased Keshlal Sharma responsible for the contributory negligence to the extent of 30% and accordingly reducing the amount of compensation is devoid of raerit. 11. Coming to the next question, true, theclaimants pleaded, deceased used to earn Rs.4500/- per month by distributing electricity bills and by his occupation as priest, no reliable, cogent and clinching evidence is adduced in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the /^o approach of the Tribunal in discarding the above plea regarding income of the deceased by the appellants/claimants. 12. Nevertheless, the accident took place in the year 2007. As per post-mortem, the deceased was aged about 35 years at the tinie of accident, therefore, he could have easily earned Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum even by working as unskilled labourer and the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income ofthe deceased as Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. Therefore, we propose to recoinpute the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13. After deducting l/3rd of income of deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' annual dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/-. 14. The deceased Keshlal Sharma, as per post-mortem report, was aged about 35 years. Multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in view of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.l and others -v- Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Supreme Court has prescribed multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31 to 35 years. ^' 15. By multiplying the claimants' annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. After deducting 30% of it towards contributory negligence of deceased, the clairaants would become entitled for Rs.1,79,200/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The appellants/claimants are further entitled for Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- for loss ofestate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses). Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,94,200/- as compensation for the death ofKeshlal Sharma in the motor accident on 5.2.2007, in place of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The appellant/claimants are also entitled for Rs.8,800/- as quantified interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.84,200/-. 17. For the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are awarded further a sum of Rs.93,000/- (Rs.84,000/- towards enhanced amount + Rs.8,800/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.84,000/-), over and above the amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. ^ 18. Respondent No.2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Developraent Corporation is granted three months time to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the concerned Claims Tribunal. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge