COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT D[VISjON_BgNCH Coram. : HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & SUNIL KUIVIARS1NHA. J. Mlsc. Appeal No. 1089 of 2005 (Non-appilcants 3) /c t United tndia insurance Co.Ltd., Rohtak, District Rohtak (Haryana) Through Divisiona! Offlce, Krishna Compiex, Kutehery Chouk, Raipur (CG) Versus Satpal S/o Ramkishan Jat, R/oJasla, Thana Jasia, District RohtaR (Haryana) (Driver of offending vehide No.HR 61/1261) (Non-applleant 1) Rambhagat S/o Sanwatia R/o Bhawaia, House No. 1050, District Jhajar (Haryana) (Ovvner of offending vehicte No.HR 61/1261) (Non-applicant 2) MangEi Bai, aged 28 years, VVd/o Late Punau @ PurEavmali (Marar) Ishwar (IVIinor), aged 15 years, S/o Late Punau @ Punavmaii (Marar) Dukalu (Minor), aged 13 years, S/o Late Punau @ Punavma!! (Marar) Karma S/o Heeraram (Marar), aged 60 years IVIaii Kartikmati W7o Karma; aaed 58 years Nos 4 & 5 through Wali Mother Mangli Bai, All R/o Pachpedi, Thana Sarsinv^a, Tahsi! Bliaigarh, Dlstrict ^^ "^ Raipur (CG) (Nos.3 to 7 are appSicants •/ clainnants) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173. MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Present: Shri Sanjay S Agrawai, learned counsei for the appeliant. None for the respondents though served. ORDER (1st May, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counse! forthe appellant is heard on M.C.P. No.1308/2005, a petition for condonation of the deiay in fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfled that the appeliant/' Insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) M.C.P.No. 1308/2005, therefore, Is allowed and the dejay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Sanjay S. Aarawal, learned counsel for the appeiiant is heard on admission. 5) This is insurer's appeai against the impugned award dated 19.04.2005, passed by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Baiod Bazar ( for short 'the Tribunai') in Claim CaseNo.61/2004. 6) Respondents No.3 to 7 (claimants) unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Punau @ Punavmaii ciaimed compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- by flting a daim petjtion under Sectjon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for hls death In the motor accident on 12.06.2003 -when the Auto-rickshaw in which he v^as traveiling by the offending vehicie Jeep, bearing No.HR-6171261, resultlng in his instantaneous on the spot itseif. The ciaimants further that deceased Punau @ Punavmali used to earn Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- permonth asMason. 7) The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehide Jeep contested the clairn and denied their liabllity to pay compensation to the ciaimants. The Insurer of the Jeep took the further plea that the driver of the. offending vehicie Jeep was not hoidtng a vaiid driving Slcence and the Jeep was beina in .breach of the poljcy ccsnditions. 8) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied before it that Punau @ Punavmaii died on account of the Injurles by hlm In the rnotor accident on 1 2.06.2003; the occurre^.due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicie Jeep; as the offendlng vehlcle Jeep on the of the was insured w'rth the united India Ensurance Company Limited; the insurance Company to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 9) The Tribuna! the Income of the at Rs.3,750/- ?3er month. By 1/3rd of R.s.3,750/- the personai of the deceased, tne claim§nts' ^eDendency at Rs.2,500/- per month and ^..^..k^^.w.^^^-'^- Rs.30,000/- per annurn. By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.30,000/- with the muitipiier of 16, the c-ompensatlon was vvorked out to Rs.4,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum •of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the cfaimants for.the of Punau @ Punavmaii in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of Interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- @ 9% per annum from the of fiilng of the cJaim petition, till the of payment. 10) The impugned award 19.04.2005 gave rise to fiiing of tvvo misceilaneous one at the of the appe'siant/ Insurance Company which came to be registered as M.A.No. 1089/2005 (present appeal) and the other at the of the ciaimants for enhancement of the compensatlon which came to be registered as M.A. No.766/2005. 11) The fiied by the ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation i.e. M.A. No.766/2005 was finaliy declded vide order 10.01.2006 in the foSlowlng terms: "1. !n this' appea! preferred by the dependents of the seeking ' more compensation, the oniy contention urged by the iearned counsei for the is that the Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribuna! (M.A.C.T.) js 'not justified jn not awarding any compensatlon towards ioss of and that what is awarded towards loss of consortium is on iower side. Ho other point was urged. As we repeatedEy held and relterated,. the M.A.C.T. is required to award reasonabie compensation under conventionaf heads, which i ^ '^%-^ \ compensation shoufd refiect time and piace snd current money vaiue and such compensation cannot be static for aS! time. in that vlew of the matter, vve avvard a sum of Rs.25,000/- toward of consortium and another sum of Rs.25,000/- tovvards ioss of 2. The Impuaned award shaii stand modified ascorolQaly..^ In. aii .otherj^spects, the impugnsd award shall stand unaltered. The M.A. No. 766 of Is dlsposed of in the above terms. No costs." 12) Shri Sanjay S Agrawal; iearned ccunsei for the appeliant/ Insurance Cornpany vehementiy argued that the Tribunai has erred in the income of the deceased at Rs.3,750/- per month vv'it'nout any evidence in that behaif; in selecting higher muitipiier of 16; and In awardlng excessive compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the ciaimants. 13) In the present appeai, the appeilant/ Insurance Company has chalienged the impugned award on the following grounds : "A) The Cialms Tribunal acted iliegally and/or, materia! irreguiarity In awarding the compensatlon extremely in higher slde. B) In of the ps'oof of the income of the deceased,"tee Tribuna! ought not to have his monthly income at the rate of Rs.3,750/-, however, in such circumstances, his notional income ought to have at. Rs.15,000/- as provided to Second ScEieduie of Section 163-A of the Act, C) !n any case, it ought to have seen that the appiicants have failed to prove that the deceased was a 'Raj-Mistri' by profession. D) The impugned is even othero/ise contrary to law and, in of jurisdictlon vested in it." '-'"•-;?';SF—S^ ^r^ _@SjB!^^~F :-T~F ^ 1 v''":":v ^^ t»fNa»- 14) Thus, it Es apparent from the above quoted grounds of the that oniy the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunai has been chaElenged by the appelianV insurance Company. 15) it is apparent. from the above quoted order dated 10th January, in JVI.A. No. 766/2005 that the Divlsion Bench whlle passing the order dated 10'' January, 2006 and awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/" towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of has affirmed the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunai. 16) In this view of the matter, Interference at the behest of the appellant/ Insurance Company in this appeai in the quantum of compensatlon awarded by the Tribunai, in our opinlon, is not iegaiiy permissibie. 17) That apart, considering the fact that Punau Punavmaii was a Mason by profession and was aged about 40 years on the of the accident; his widow ryiangli Bai was 28 years of age, wh^eas his two minor sons vvere aged about 15 years and 13 years, we are that the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive compensation which may warrant interference in this fiied by the insurance Company. 18) For the foregoing reasons; we do not find any scope for interference in this appeai flted by the appeliant/ Insurance ^1'?^;^.:''::<:;:lt£^''^^^^~?BSIS%^:lif .7 ^ Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 19) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be and Is hereby dlsmissed summariiy. ^^-^—========-- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu