Sun ar Sinha Jge - ief Jusu‘ce Sdl- Sunil umar na Jude r? HIGH COURT-OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Hon’ble Shrl Raleev Gupta, C J. 85 Hon’ble Shr1 Sum! Kumar Smha, J. CORAM: M.A. ‘No. 162 of 2002 " Chaganlal .85 Others Vs. Rajuram 8a Others il Kum ! ud HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA Q /08/2010 Sdl Ch r Post for Order LQQLQ—‘x‘ i K Sih g , \‘/ 770872010 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILSPUR , A II’bl Sh R Gt C J 8 -one n aJeev upa, . 5 on’ble Shr1 Suml Kumar Smha so mEH4oa1§ WWWmf WéW®W WW W‘ wwo mi Wmw a Wm wWWmwW WWm) Veus rs mwéamww H wom 1 a , f q 111 aoq—vr o 2mm WEN wow gm mm i(%hmmh€W) aam173tmmarfr a Appe. , earanc r ManOJ M1shra Advocate for the appellants/claumant ‘ M s ICORAM: - ' H , M.A. No. 162 of 2002 Immm‘ WWWWWW ww) W W % mwné 1%? W .(90110) w W f $ WW ‘i’ w () 2 ‘ M.A. No. 162 of 2002 Agar; - ORDER t‘ 1 0.08.2010) Followmg order of the Court was delivered by - Suml Kumar Smha, Thls order shall govern the dlsposal of M A No 162/2002 flled by the clalmants for enhancement of compensatmn and ’ ‘ cross~objectlon, M.(C.)P. No. 1243/2005, f11ed by respondents 1 8L 2 challenging the exoneration of respondent No.3 from liability to . pay compensatiOn. (2) iMotor Acoldent Claims Tribunal Bilaspur 1n Claim Case No 89/2001 on 10th October, 2001. The 1mpugned award was passed by the Flfth Addltlonal ‘ (3')? The facts briefly stated are as under— ' The appellants/dalmants, unfortunate parents and : younger brother of deceased Ram Khilawan Dewangan f11ed a Claim Petltlon u/s 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act claimlng compensatmn of Rs 22 83 OOO/ for h1s death 1n the motor acoldent whlch took place on 18 2 2000 when he was dashed by the offendlng truck bearlng reglstratlon No MP- 26 D/5183 on account of rash and neghgent driVing of the ' ‘ ‘ said truck by its drlver The clalmants pleaded that the r deceased was a cleaner 1n the said truck and was earn1ng Rs 3 000/ per month The driver and owner of the truck remained ex—parte They d1d not f11e their wrltten statements The insurer f11ed the wr1tten statement and opposed the c1a1m f11ed by the clalmants It took spee1f1c plea that the drlver of the vehlcle Rajuram was not haVIng a valld drlVlng . 11cense on the date of the acc1dent therefore no 11ab111ty can be fastened on the Insurance Company / , (1r) ' D '(5) Mr Was1m M1yan learned counsel appearlng on behalf of - respondents 1 85 2 also argued that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated He pressed h1s cross object1on wh1ch 3 0. 162 of 20 M.A. N 02 Wig“ @t The claimants examined Chaganlal Dewangan (AW 1), Ganeshram (AW 2) and Shyam Sunder (AW 3) 1n support of thelr c1a1m pet1t10n whereas respondent No 3 examlned S.P. ‘Baksh (NAW—l) and ,Alexender Toppo (NAW~2) rebuttal. ‘The Tribunal'accepted the‘contention of the claimants that the deceased was earnlng Rs 3 000/ per month After deductmg 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the ‘ deceased the dependency was worked to Rs 2 OOO/ per month and 24 000/ per annum The deceased was aged _ about 22 years The Tr1buna1 applled multlpher of 16 to the ; annual dependency of Rs 24 OOO/ and compensatlon was ‘ worked out to Rs 3 84 000/ The Trlbunal further awarded i a sum of ‘Rs.7,000/— under other heads and the total l amount of compensation was worked out to Rs 3 91 000‘/ r The Trlbunal also awarded 1nterest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of f111ng of the Clalm Petltlon t111 ‘ reallzatlon The Trlbunal held that respondent No 1 was ‘ haVIng no vahd dr1V1ng hcense on the date of the acc1dent therefore the Insurance Company was not hable to ,pay compensatlon and 1t was d1rected that the amount of compensatlon shall be payable by the owner and drlver y (4) i Mr ManOJ Mlshra learned counsel appearlng on behalf of '1 the appellants/clalmants, argued that the Tr1bunal has awarded ‘ low compensatlon to the appellants and has wrongly exonerated the insurance Company. a x MA. No. 1 62 of 2002 m- a ‘ as mainly fied aanst .te exoneraton o ‘the Insurance Cmpay for'want f a valid driving license wit respondent No. I. on o h n te other’hand,. r. ree umar rawa, learned Sr. - l pig bhlf f p3 pp he Counse apearn on ea o resondent>No., oosed tes argumens; an suorte te: award asse the aim t d ppd h pd by‘ Cls Tribunal ,( f t d fd ‘;7)‘ So ar as quanum of compensation 1s concerne we in hat the claimants themselves leaded that the deceased was orking asaa cleaner and e was earning 's O/— per mont The above contentlon was accepted by the Claims Tribunal x ‘, i‘urther the Tribunal was quite liberal in deducting only l/3r l d v owards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased wa a bachelor therefore, the deduction ought to have gone to the extent of one half in View of the Judgment of the Supreme Court ”rendered in the matter of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others — i > ‘Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225,4 in ‘ ' which it was held that the general rule regarding deduction from ,the income of the deceased is 50%, if he is bachelor and one third 11f he is marrie e urter note tat te ribunal has appied d W fh h h T l p ‘multiplier of 16 which also appears to be on the higher Side i light of the fact that the appellants were parents and appellant ‘jNo 1- Chaganlal Dewangan was aged about 50 years and ' t‘appellant No 2 Binda Bai was aged about 4O years and they were thaVing _ their own earnings, and. appellant ,No.3-. 'RaJuram' j Dewangan was a dependant‘o'n appellants No.. _1_ ‘85 2i and not§ *@ W l gi h i f (6) O h M Sh K Agl . ' t p p w h R 3 OO h ’ t s n [ on .. o. 162 of200 MA N 2 . h r h utr a the deceased Te Tibunal as been frhe liberal to awrd intrest a the rate of 9% per annum W, therefore, find that e t .r. e there s hardl any scbpe fOr ehament of amount of i ty ' nnce comensation lready awarded o the appellants/claimants forith p a t e h ddRa Khl D i m deat of ecease-m iawan ewangan n the otor accident. * (8) Sofar as exoneration of Insurance Company is cencerne‘d ‘ the Tribunal has taken into account the ev1dence of S P Baksh ’ _ (NAW 1) and Alexender Toppo (NAW 2) S P Baksh (NAW 1) was orking as Clerk 1n the offlce of RT O Bilaspur He came w1th he records of the RTO office and deposed that the dr1v1n t g I license 1ssued 1n the name of_ respondent No.1 Rajuram i Dewangan,‘ was valld only upto 26 2 99 and 1t was not vahd afte he said date The said ev1dence 1s intact on record as nothin t g r dverse could be brought 1n rebuttal It 1s on this ev1dence th r1bunal held that respondent No 1 was hav1ng no valld dr1v1n ‘ T g l eense on the date of the acc1dent which took place on 18 2 2® , ’ ‘ h OO hough Mr Was1m Miyan argued that after the said date th T e license was renewed from RTO Korba, but he could not g y h substantiate h1s arument b any materlal on record In te I h l f T O Kb appeal along w1t an appication a letter o R ora has een filed i whih m hat said license wa b n c it 1s entioned t the s ‘V renewed by their offlce upto 24 3 2006 is was a etter ated Th l d ‘28 9 2005 Copy of the license has not been filed Even on the basrsof this letter, it was not clear that the license wasrenewed ‘ 5 @ \ V r L a e 6 ’ ‘ M.A. No. 162 of'2002 ‘ m» vr the' said office from which date till 23.4.2006 as contained‘in frOm the letter. Therefore, it was notiat all established on record that the driving license issued in favour of respondent No.1 was Valid r he date of the acc1dent and the findlng recorded by the I unal that respondent No 1 was havmg no valid dr1V1ng license n th o e date‘;of acoldent cannot be, interfered, For the foregomg reasons we do not flnd any substance i e1ther 1n the appeal or 1n the cross objection filed Vide M (C )P No " 1243 /2005 The appeal and cross objectlon therefore are liable to be " ‘ (10) ‘ dlsm ‘ issed and are hereby dlsmlssedu (9) on t Trlb (111} No order as to cost. ”: f #1}; Sd/- It i Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinhai Chief Jusu'ce i r Judge Ln