HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. M.A. No. 183 of 2003 Jai Singh & Others Vs. Saroj Singh & Others Postfor Judgment 3 / $2010 sw- Sunn Kumar Sinha Judge i a ‘4 j JUDGMENT For consideration Sdl- ; Sunil Kumar Sinha L, ' Judge »/ HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR \\\ Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge ‘7J &,/2010 2 MA. No. 183 of2003 X JUDGMENT (3 .08.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 41/2002 by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kanker vide award dated 17. 1 0.2002. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellants, unfortunate parents and elder brother of deceased— Arvind Kumar, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,09,200/— for his death in the motor accident on 3.1.2002 when the Jeep bearing _ registration No. MP—25/2486, in which the deceased was traveling, met with an accident on account rash and negligent driving of the said jeep by its driver. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as labour and was earning Rs.1,580/— per month. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led in the matter, held that the deceased was earning Rs.1,300/- per month and Rs.15,600/- per annum. By deducting 1/3’d towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.10,400/— per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 8 to the said annual dependency of Rs.10,400/— and the compensation was worked out to Rs.83,200/— By adding a further sum of Rs.12,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded ~Rs.95,200/—as compensation to the appellants for the death of deceased Arvind Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the _rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The Tribunal directed that respondents 1 to 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants. i \ q M‘A. N0. 183 of 2003 @ (3) Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appeilants, argued that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal was not proper; ‘proper multip|ier was not used; and a low compensation was awarded. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/lnsurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) Though the appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.1,580/— per month by doing labour work but father of the deceased namely Jai Singh (AW—1) and Prem Singh (AW—2) deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.52.75 p. per day by doing labour work. This appears to be the rate prescribed in the said district at the relevant time. The Tribunal took it as Rs.50/- per day and held that the labour work would be available for about 26 days in a month as normally 4 days happen to be holidays. The Tribunal, thus, assessed monthly income as Rs.1 ,300/- and annual income as Rs.15,600/-. We do not find any fault in such assessment made by the Tribunal as the same wasvbased on the evidence of the above 2 witnesses and except the above, there was no other material to show the income of the deceased. a: (7) The Tribunal was quite liberal to deduct only 1/3'd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas, the deduction would have -%¢ “‘7; 4 M.A. No. 183 of2003 / gone to the extent one—half in View of the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others —Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225, in which, it was held that the “General rule regarding deduction from the income of the deceased is 50%‘ if he is bacheior and one-third if he is married". As the deceased was unmarried, after his marriage his contribution to the present appellants would have been substantially reduced. (8) So far as multiplier is concerned, we note that the deceased was ‘ aged about 20-22 years and his parents were aged about 55 & 50 years The parents must be having their own earnings. The 3rd appellant was the elder brother of the deceased who was shown to be aged about 25 years. Even he may not be the dependant of the deceased on account of his own earnings. Therefore. looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was fully justified to use the multiplier of 8 in this " matter and we do not find any error in the award on this account also. (9) The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. lt has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. aThe courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend W ‘WN‘L‘; 5 M.A. No‘ 183 of2003 upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression “just” denotes equitabiiity, fairness, reasonabieness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Haryana and another —Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others —vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90. (10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the vatti appeal. The appeal fiied by the appellants for enhancement of compensation, therefore, is Iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (11) No orderasto cost. Sd/— . Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar i 3 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge "’“’ Judge