HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIVISION BENCH u CORAM HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ HON BLE SHRI N K AGARWAL J l I Appellants 1. Bhupendra Kumar Sahu, s/o Iate Claimants I 2. Shantanu Sahu aged about 14 yrs s/o late Ram Nath Sahu 3. Ku. Chitrarekha, aged about 12 yrs, d/o late Ram Nath Sahu. Teekaram Sahu, aged about 10 yrs, s/o late Ram Nath Sahu. 5. Chaman, aged about 4 yrs, s/o late Ram Nath Sahu. , Appellant No. 2 to 5 represented by Misc. Appeal No. 1304 of 2005 VETEW’!- Ram Nath Sahu aged about 18 yrs elder brOther, Bhupendra Kumar Sahu, all residents of village Khamtarai, -P.O. Gullu. P.S. and Tehsil Arang, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS v Res'pondents . Balram Sahu, Slo Bisahu Ram Sahu, Noni—applicants occupation driver, r/o Khamtarai, ask P.S. Arang, district Raipur C.G. 2. Bisahu Ram Sahu, s/o Govind Ram Sahu (owner) R/o Khamtarai, P.S. Arang, district Raipur C.G. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofhce, Kuttcheri Chowk, Jail Road RaipurCG MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR~VEHICLES ACT r ”iix. Present. Shri A L Singraul counsel forthe appellants Shn Parag Kotecha counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. R ORDER (09th May, 2011‘) l I 3The 1 following order of the Court was passed by Rajéev Gupta, C.J. I \ iThis is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ‘ Raip’ug (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 04.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 50 of 2005. 2) i As‘against the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/— claimed by the appe‘llants/ claimants, unfortunate children of deceased Ram Nath Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing {of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led beforie it held that deceased Ram Nath Sahu, died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.04.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No.C.G-04- ZD/9003 and CG—04-ZD/9004, respectively; though the above Tractor-Trolley on the date.,of the accident were insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, as the Tractor—Trolley were beingz‘ plied in breach of the policy conditions and’there was no insurance coverage of the persons travelling in the Tractor—Trolley, j 31' wk x the ihsurer of the Tractor-Trolley was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of theudriver and owner of the Tractor-Trolley. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month. By deducting 1/3’d of Rs.1,800/- towa‘rds the personai expenses of the deceased the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 ,200l- per month and Rs.14,400l— i a per fannum, which was rounded off to Rs.15,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/—with the multipiier of 1E5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,25,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ram Nath Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the aboye amount of compensation of Rs.2,30,000/— @ 9%‘per annum ~ front the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual l payment.- 5) 1 S‘hri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Tractor—Trolley from its liability to pay compensation to the lclaimants; in not aCCepting the claimants’ evidence about the incdmeof the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.60/- per dayland Rs.1 ,800/— per month; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; ‘ andiin awarding low compensation of Rs.2,30,000/— only. ‘vx " ’*"""l l is; “W” j I 6) ‘ Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, su ported the award and contended that as the Tractor-Trolley were beiTg used 'at the time of the accident in breach of the poiicy conditiOns, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Traptor—Trolley from its liability to‘pay compensation to the claimants. l l l 7) l Shri Parag Kotechak learned counsel for' respondent No.1 l » ‘ Balfam Sahu, the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the iother hand, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating thei insurer of the Tractor-Trolley .from’ its liability to pay \ compensation to the claimants and in holding the driver and owner l l ‘1 of thje Tractor-Trolley liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading. to 'exoneration of the insurer of the Tractor-Trolley is concerned, it is apparent that‘the Tractor-Trolley in question were registered and insured for agriculture purpose only and on the date of the accident 25 —30 persons including deceased Ram Nath Sahu were travelling in the Tractor-Trolley on their way to attend an‘engagement ceremony. The Tribunal’s above finding is based on the contents of the Fjirst Information Report which was produced before the Tribunal / by the claimants themselves. 7) l That apart, the Insurance Policy does not reveal that any extra premium was paid by the owner for covering the risk of 25 — 30 persdns travelling in the Tractor-Trolley at the time of the accident. r ‘av -\ 8) ‘ On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunai leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Tractor-Trolley from its iiability to pay compensation to the claimants and holding the driver and owner of the Tractor-Trolley I liable to pay compensation to the claimants. \9) compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just i‘s‘ andi proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It’should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we'shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.é,30,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Deceased Ram Nath Sahu was'aged about 38 years on the date of the accident. He was resident of village Khamtarai, tahsil . Arahg, district Raipur. Considering that deceased Ram Nath Sahu was: working in a small village, we are of the opinion that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60/— per day and Rs.1,800/- per month does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. , 12) l The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the gTribunaI by deducting the usual 1/3r" of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13)‘: Considering that dec‘éased Ram Nath Sahu was found to be 38 years of age on the date of the accident by the Tribunal, multiplier In a motor accident claim case, ‘what is important is that the ’ l i ~.-\ / of 15 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be on the lower side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of'Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36 40 years 14) For the foregomg reasons we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensatlon elther on account of the i u ‘ assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 15) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is l hereby dismissed. 16); As there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 Bisahu Ram Sahu, the owner of the' Tractor-Trolley, the cross- obje‘ctions filed on his behalf are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. 17)i No order as to costs. ’ Sdl- Sd/- N_K. ‘Agawa‘ CHIEF JUSTICE Judge subbU’