,^y£'/3iSft... .1 y^I\ '^*3*^^ 'sia l.*^^ 'z ^? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 566 of 2004 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-applicants Munni Bai and others Versus Ramjanam Ram and others AWARD For consideration -12-2011 Hon'ble Shri Jystice Rajeev Gupta "^^^ Sd/- ChiefJustict Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Post for pronouncement ofAward: g -12-2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judgc \ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 566 of 2004 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Munni Bai, W/o Hariram., aged about 35 yerars, R/o Village Ranhat, Police Station Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Santosh, S/o Hariram, age years, Occupation-Student. 18 Jyoti Prakash, S/o Late Hariram, aged about 16 years, Minor through guardian mother (AppellantNo.l). Sanjay, S/o late Hariram, age 14 yrs, Minor through guardian mother (Appellant No.l) All are R/o Village Ranhat, P.S. Chalgali, Presently Resident of Surajpur, P.S. and Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus Ramjanam. Ram, S/o Nanka Ram, aged about 32 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Chalgali, Post Chalgali, District Surguja (C.G.) (DRIVER) Gurbej Singh Chhabda, R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (OWNER) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (INSURER) 4. Nathiya, W/o Jagni, aged about '~~70 years, Occupation, House wife. 5. Jagni, S/o Paliha, age 75 years, Occupation - Agriculture. Appellant No.4 85 5 are R/o Village Lephri, P.S. Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) at present R/o Nagar Surguja, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) APPEAL U/S 173 OF M.V. ACT Corani: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Aganval, J PRESENT:- Shri AK Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Jeet Patel, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. AWARD (Passedon <? -12-2011) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 6th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.32/2003 vide its award dated 29.03.2004. 2. As against compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the legal representatives of deceased - Hariram by filing claim. application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 10.11.2002, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum froin the date oF~ claim application till its actual payment. rii<-:[ 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No.C.G.15/ZA-0785 by its driver Ram Janam Ram; Hariram died on account of injuries sustained by hini in the said accident; respondent No.S/United India Insurance Company Liraited liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment. 4. Shri A.K.Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.15000/- per annum only; and in awarding low amount of compensation ofRs.1,89,500/- only. 5. On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence to drive "transport vehicle but was not possessing licence to drive "passenger carrying vehicle inasmuch as the licence is wifhout endorsement of the "public service vehicle , and therefore, the insurance corapany is not Hable for payment of compensation. 6. Shri Jeet Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.l & 2 supported Che award and submitted: in the facts and '^!;r-i"^^ 11 ''BaisHS't S '%} f ^..te^' circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper con'ipensation which does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 8. Indisputably, the vehicle in question is a mini Bus. The licence in question was renewed for a period of 3 years to drive transport vehicle. "Driving licence" has been defined in Section 2 (10) to mean "the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description." "Transport vehicle" has been defined in Section 2 (47) to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect: "10. Form and contents oflicences to drive.—(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be pre^cribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall 'sdso be expressed as entitling the holder to driver a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) Invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; . (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (]') motor vehicle of a specified description. '--2 9. Central Government had framed Rules known as "the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989". Form 6 requires a specific authorization to drive a. transport vehicle". For convenience, relevant part of Form 6 is reproduced thus: "[FORM 6 [Seerule 16(1)] (To be printed in book form of th.e size six centinieters by eight centimeters) Name of the licence holder. Son/wife/daughter of. Passport size Photograph Name to be written across the photograph (Part of the seal and signature of the licensing authority to be on fhe photograph and part on the driving licence). Specimen signature/thumb iinpression of the holder of the licence Signature and designation of the Licensing Authority Driving licence number. Date of issue Name. Son/wife/daughter of Citizenship Temporary address/official address (ifany), Permanent address. Date of biyth Educatiohal qualifications. Optional Blood group.. ..............:*. RH factor The holder of this licence is licensed to drive throughout India vehicles of the following description:— Motor cycle without gear Motor cycle with gear Invalid carriage; ! flj- Light motor vehicle; Transport vehicle; Road-roller; Motor vehicle of a specified description, namely The licence to drive a motor vehicle other than to................................ The licence to drive transport vehicle is valid form........................... to. Name and designation of the authority who conducted the driving test. Signature and designation of the Licensing Authority Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Authorised to with effect Number........................ Date. drive transport vehicle from........................Badge number Signature. Designation of the Licensing Authority 10. The above provision which was in force on the date of accident clearly reveals, now for goods carrying vehicle and for passenger carrying vehicle, the licence to drive transport vehicle' is required and no separate endorsement with regard to "goods carrying vehicle" or "public service vehicle" is necessary. 11. Therefore, it is difficult for us to accept the argument advanced by Shri Dashrath Gupta that in the absence of endorsement with regard to passenger service vehicle, the Ucence would be invalid and the same is rejected and in our opinion, the ^-espondent No.S/United India Insurance Company Limited eannot escape frortl-^ts liability to pay compensation on the above ground. r?i ( ^l 12. Now, we shall examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. True, the claimants pleaded deceased - Hariram used to eam Rs.6000/- per month by working as carpenter and from agriculture, but failed to substantiate the same by adducing cogent and clinching evidence in this regard. Therefore, we do not Snd any infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the above plea raised by the appellants/claimants in the claini petition. 14. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act in the year 1994. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased, even as unskilled labour, could have easily earned Rs.24000/- per annum in the year 2002, i.e. the year of accident. Therefore, we propose to re- compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 15. Looking-' to the number of dependents, we propose to / deduct l/4th of the incom.e of deceased towards his personal expenses. 16. After deducting l/4th income of deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' annual dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. 17. The deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Venna (Smt.) and others -v- Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the Supreme Court has prescribed multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41 to 45 years. 18. By multiplying the claimants annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation towards claimant's dependency works out to Rs.2,52,000/-. 19. Besides above, the appellants/claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses). Thus, the appellants/clarmants would be entitled for Rs.2,67,000/- as compensation in place of Rs.1,89,500/- i.e. Rs.77.500/- over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 20. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the pardes about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest ^- on the enhanced amount of con-ipensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 21. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Hariram lost his life, took place in the year 2002; the claim petition Was filed by the claimants in the year 2003; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2004; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation in the year 2004 and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2011. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.77,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants arefurther awarded amount of compensation of Rs.85,000/- (Rs.77,500/- is the enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified interest on the enhanced araount of compensation of Rs.77,500/-) The above enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to widow and minor children of deceased. The award is raodified to the extent above. -.Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 10 23. Respondent No.3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three moths time for depositing the total sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) with the concerning Claims Tribunal. 24. No order as to costs. Chi Sd/- liefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge