L\ ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bte Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, APPELLANTS M.A.(ClNo.467 012008 : Shyainlal Pradhan ancl others. Versus Jahid Khan aiwl othere. ORDER ForPronoyncenientofOrder ^^ .06.2011 "^' Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge MIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L^NANMVAR.J. APPELLANTS APPUCANTS Misc. Appeal (Gl fto. 467 <xr2008 : 1. Shyamlat Pradhan @ Bhaiia, aged about 52years, S/o JynduPradhan, 2. Smt. Sukhbati Bai, Ifitto Shyamlal Pradhan,Agedabo(it45yeara, : 3. Ku. Rajbati, D/o Shyamlat Pradhan, aged about 15 years (minor), Through her natural guardian father Shyamttrt Pradhan. All abovfr residentfr of Naharpwa^ Kondagaon,DistrictBasatar(CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Jahid IQian, S^ymaff Khan, R^» Naharpaea, Kondagaon, DJstrtet Sastar P3) 2. Or. Smt. S. Bansal.VVtoS^Ban^at. R/o Kewara Munda Ward, Jagdalpyr <CG) 3. Branch Nanager, New India Insui'anee Company Limited. Branch <taodatpur. DistriGt Bastar (CG) imSCELLANEOUSAPPEALUNDERSECTIONlTSOF-^EMGyTOR ^^•HCLES^CT Appearance: Shri M.V. Paranjpe, counsel for tii®app®N«iite. ShriSaurabhShamia.counselforresponclentNo^. Nonefor respondenteNo. 1 &2 though^^^^rved. 01®ER (Passedon ^ .06.2011) This is dainianfs appeal seeking enhaneement of compensation awarded tey the Acklttional ft4otor Accidents Olaims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar <for short 'Clalms Tribunal') in claim case No. 123/2007 victeorderdated 29.11.2007. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, a^4hat on 27.t®»200^Ihe deceased Raju Pradhan and ottier passengero wewtraveling in vehicte No. CG 17 ZD 0364, owned by respondent No.2 and was being dnven by its lfc,2.. 1 ^Ss^. j '^' ..^"1?J •^^-y' driver/respondent No.1. Due te rash and negligent driwng t»y its drh/er/responctent. the vehicle met with accident at Kondagaon near Petrol Pump and as a resutt of accident.the deceased Ra|u Pradhan got injuries on his head and other parts of body, resutting into hls instanteneous daatti. 3. The unfortunate parents and sister of the decai^ed had preferred a claim application seeking compensation ofRs.4,11,000/- ft>r the cteath of Raju Pradhan in the motor accident. 4. As agalnst the compensation of Rs.4,11,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal, on elose scrufiny ofthe ewdence, nmterial placed and respeGtive submissions of the parties. hetd that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicte, the deceased Raju Pradhan had lost his life in the motor accident and as the offendhig vehtete vws insured with respondent No.3, the insurance company js ateo responsibto to pay compensation and awarded a tolal sum of Rs.98,000/- as compensatton along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants subinitted that the tearned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensafion of Rs.95,000/- only. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in wrongly assessing monthly income ofth®deceased as Rs.1500/- whereas it oughtto have been at Rs.36000/- per annum as noftional income. Theteamed Ctoims Tribunal has further errecl in applying multiplier of 11 instead of 13. Drawing attention towards policy of tnsurance, leamed counsel for the appellants argued that as per policy the insurance company was confined to pay upto Rs.1,00,000/- per pereon and if the amount of compensstfton te enhanced, the owner will be responsibto to pay the same. 6. On the other hand, in order to counter the arguments of leamed counsel for the appellants, netther respondente No.1 & 2 nor their counsel app^ared before this Court. However. leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.3 argued that the compensatlon awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation, and therefore, need not be intBrferred with. l'v-;' 7. I have heard toamed counset appearing for the parties and have perused the impugned award jnduding record. 8. The claimants pleaded that the deceased Raju Pradhan was aged 20 years and used to eam Rs.85/- per day and Rs.2550/- per month as labourer and they are dependents ofthe deceased. However, despitothere betng no cljnching and reliable evldence as to exact income of the deeeased, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- and afl»r deducttng one-third towards personal expenses of th®deceased, annual dependency of Rs.11000/- was worked out. Taking into account the age of the father at 52 years, applied multJplier of 11 on the annual dependeney of Rs.1,32,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal presuming that the deceased himself must have spent one-third amount towards peraonal expenses deducted further one-third amount from Rs.1.32.000/- and worked out total dependency at Rs.88,000/-. By addSng Rs.7,000/- under Gfther permfesibte heads, the Tribunal worked out total compensatton of Rs^S.OOO/- for the death of Ra|u Pradhan tnthemotor accictent. 9. In a motor accident clatm case, what is iraportant Is that the compensation to t»awarded t^ the Courts/Tribunats should b®ju^ and proper compensation in the facts and dreumstancea of the case. tt shoutel neittier be a meager amount of compensafion nor a bonareM. I shall new examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.95.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and feir eompensation in the facts and cireumstances of the presentcase. 10. True, the claimants (rieadwl that deceased Raju Pradhan used to eam Rs.85/- per day and Rs.2550/- per month as labourer, no reltabte and dinchlng evidence was led before the Tribunal t®estebUsh ttie above occupation of the deceased and his jnGome to ttie exterrt of Rs.2^0/- per month. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of ttie deceasedat Rs.1500/- per month in the year 2007 Is certainfy on th®lower side and requires consideration. The Tribunal should haw adopted th® method of notional income and then aasessed the income of the vietims and sufferers. 11. Consldering that deceased ttiat deceased Raju Praidtwn was found to beaged 20 years, as pleaded by the claimants, lam ofthe opinion fhat he 4o coukl have easily eamed Rs.86/- per day and RsSSBOI- per monlti In the year 2007 even by woridng as an un^dlled labourw. t, therefore, pr^ose to re-compute the compensatton taking the Income of the deceaiecl at Rs.2500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 12. So far as deduction of 1/3 amounl from the income of the deceased is concemed, I am of the considered.opinion that it is improper. In the mattor of Syed Baheer Ahnml and othefs vs. llohwnmwl Jamerf witf anoffwr, (2009) 2 SCC 225, It was held that in case of bachetor, the general rute to deduct would be one-half and in caae of a marrted, deducton of one-ttiird amount would be appropriate. Admlttedfy, the deceased was bachator. In the instant case, since the appeltants are mother, fattier and mfnor sistor of the deceased, therefore, dedufltion of one-hatf wouki-be appropriate. After cteducting one-halfamounttowardspersonal expenses ofthe deceased from Rs.30,00(y-, the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- would come. 13. The Tribunal has appBed multiplier of 11 taklng into account the ag®of appellant No.1. The approach ofttie Tribunal tn apfllyta®multipliwof 11 is improper in view of the dedslon of the Suprem®Court in llunlelpal CorporatlonofGf'eaterBombayvs. Lwman lyer an^l wwttwr, peported In (2003)8 SCC 731, wherein itwas held that thosecases whew the parents of the deceased are arrayed as claimants, the multiplier should never exceed 10. In ttie instant appeai, iappellante No.1 & 2 are the parente of the deceased and were arrayed as claimants. Therefore, multipljw of 10 would beappropriate. 14. By multlplying the annual ctopenctency of Ks.tS^XW- wtth the multiplier of 10, the compensatiOR worte out to Rs.,1,50.000/- The claimants are further enttttod to receh/e Rs.18000/- underother permtssibte heads. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,6S,OCKy- as compensaUon forttie death ofdeceased Raju Pradhan in fte motoraccident. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/- , ttiarefore, the claimants would get Rs.70,000/- more. Considering all the rolevant factors inctuding the delay in disposal ofthe daimpetitlon and the present appeal as also the fact that the owner alone is not to be blamod for the delay In disposal of the matter. 1 quantHy the amount of intorest payabto on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.70,000/- at Rs.5000/-. Therefore, >. ~^:'v., ;/ f the compensation of Rs.95,000/- awarctod by the Claims Tribunal te enhanced by Rs.75,000/-. The dalmants are entitled to receive Rs.75,000/- more, in addition to compensation of RsJ&SfXW- as awarded byth®Tribunal. 16. Now. the questton arises for consideFation as to whether virfio Is liable for payment of compensation of Rs.75.000/- awarded bythis ©ourt.A bare perusal of insurance policy Ex.D.1 .would d^iriy reveal that ttie insuranee company is confined te pay upto Rs.1,00,000/- per peison since the insurance policy covers the risk of onty 4 uimamed passengere. Vide award dated 29.11.2007, ttie insuranw company might have safefied ttie compensation amount of Rs.95,000/- aloi^i wtth interest awardect by the Tribunal, therefore, the insurance company is liabte to pay onty Rs.5,OOQ/-, out of Rs.75.000/-, as awarded by this Court. Sinee the insurance company is confined to pay only Rs.1,00,000/- as per policy Ex.D.1, the remaintng amountof compensation of Rs.70,000/- shall be paid by the owner l.e. respondent No.2 17. The appeal fited by the appellants / daimants for enhancement of the compensation. therefore, is attowed In part. 18. Respondent No.2 - owner of the offending vehlcte is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs.70,000/- before the ^\ conceming Claims Tribynal. No order as to coste. R.L. Jhanwar Judge