//"^ y & __ fi ^asSs^ ^ •^- '%... 's?" ~'!5s'a&£^ '<: ^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Applicant Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal fC) No. 54 of 2008 Virendra Mishra, aged about 51 years, son of late Shri Rajni Mishra, resident of village Pandhriya, post Pandhriya, police station Chatiya, district Rohtas (Bihar) VERSUS 1. Bhopal Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Chattar Singh, resident of Parsoriya, police station Sanoda, districtSagarM.P. 2. Ramesh Patel, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Kundal Singh Patel, resident of 22, Pratap Nagar, Devas, district Devas M.P. 3 National Insurance Company Limited, Station Road Devas, Unit No.320401, District Devas M.P. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel on behalf of Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (05'"September,2011) ^Y i'%iyi>: v/f^ ••••^^'.^ :'^"^^ M.A.C.No.54of2008 ^) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29'.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 106/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,90,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate father of deceased Sunil Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the K4otor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,500/- ascompensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,84,500/-only. 4) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in thecase of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 contended that the claimant, in fact, was not entitled to get any compensation for the death of his son Sunil Kumar. \< M.A.C.No. 54 of 2008 5) Deceased Sunil Kumar was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. The sole claimant in the case is his father Virendra Mishra, aged about 51 years. From para 3 of the statement of the claimant before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the claimant was residing separately in Bihar from his son Sunil Kumar, who at the relevant ,time was working at Rajnandgaon. It has also come in his evidence before the Tribunal that he has another son Sushil Kumar, who is elder to deceased Sunil Kumar. 6) The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) while examining the factor of dependency of thefather on unmarried son, observed in paras 31 and 32: "31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribufion to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters wi!i not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by ' parents and siblings, only the mother would be cpnsidered to be a dependant, and 50% would be MAC.No. 54 of 2008 ^s^ subbu treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased,as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribLition to the family will be taken as two-third." 7) There is no evidence in the case to establish that claimant Virendra Mishra, father of deceased Sunil Kumar is suffering from any such serious ailment which may render him unfit to pursue any occupation. 8) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In fact, in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (supra), the claimant would not even be dependent on the income of the deceased. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. l(U _No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.KAgarwa! Judge \ \~.