HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DN!S!0N BENCH CdRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV—GUPTA, C.J. ‘j -- HON’BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J yA. Misc. Aggeal No. 5s of 2mm ' Misceiianeous Aggeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act iDresent : ShriA.L. Singraul, oounselfor the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh .Sahu, eounsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (10m December, 2010) The foliow‘lng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev §upta, C.J. «a» ,. l l Agpeilant Ciaimant Smt. Hiriya Bai, Wife of Late Daya Ram Chowdhwy, Occupation — House Wife, Rio Kushalpur, Raipur Tahsii 8. Distt. — J \_ Raipur (C.G.) VERsus mi Resgondents Nan-aggicants Suresh Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Chandralgar, Slo Sri Jamit Singh, Aged about ~ 45 years, Occupation - Mini § ,‘ V F ”J Bus Driver, R/c Near Shri Ram Taikies, ,Mahasamund, Tahsii & Di$tt— Mahasamund (C.G.) ‘ § 2 Ravindra Chawia Slo Sri Gyan Singh v 1:; Chawia, Occupation — Mini Bus Owner, & ' R/o King Travei Mahasamund, Tahsii Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) The National insurance Company ‘17 Li'mit’ed., ‘ City Branch Office-No.1, 1“ Navin ‘Bazar, Raipurt Through: i. Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, i. E Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) , National insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of the claimants. ‘4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15.000/— per annum on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimant’s dependency Smt. Hiriya Bai, unfortunate widow of deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur J (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 29.09.2003, passed in Claim Case No.47/2002. 71 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,75,000/— claimed by the appeilant/claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the nit Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 04.08.2001 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20052001, the we l‘ Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.65,000l- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3)‘ The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury died on 04.08.2001 on account of the injuries sustained by him inthe motor accident on 20.05.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.MP-23D12242; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the was asséssed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 5, ttje compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads,‘ the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Daya Ram Chowdhury in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- @ 6% per annum. 5) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.65,000l- only. 6) _7 Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the deceased was an old and infirm person aged about 7O years and the claimant could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.65,000[- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. V 7) The unfortunate accident wherein deceased Daya .Ram Chowdhury sustained injuries took place on 20.05é001. Daya Ram Chowdhury remained in the hospital for treatment of the injuries for a period of about 8 daysand thereafter was discharged from the hospital. His initial, injury report reveals that he had sustained a Iacerated wound on his head region. The x—ray of his head region did not reveal any bony ihjury. Daya Ram Chowdhury i died after about three months on 04.08.2001. His body was not éaJbiected to postmortem examination for estabiishing that he died on account of the injury sustained by him in the motor accident. 8) Thouoh the ciaimant pleaded that deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury used to earn Rs 100l- per day as iabour and was atso having additional annuai income of Rs 10 000/— from agncuiture no reliable and ctinching evidence was led in that behalf. it is difficult to believe that an old and infirm person aged about 70 years would work as labour through out the year and would earn Rs.100l- per day. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule at ' Rsi1t3,0’00/— per annum. 9) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3'“ of Rs.t5,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased though the deduction in that behalf could have beento the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in View of the fact that there were only two members in the family i.e. Smt. Hiriya Bai and her husband deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury, dependent on the income of the deceased 10) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal aiso cannot be found fault with in View‘of the fact that deceased Daya Ram Chowdhury was aged about 70 years on the date of the accident. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs.15,000/- under other heads. \¥ U W, ?E fv, :A /A a: