HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR w: CQRAWI: Hon'ble Shri RaieevGupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil KumarSinha.J. M.A. No. 434 of 2003 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Tagiya Bai & Others And (Connected M.A. No. 442 of 2003) ORDER Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEVGUPTA d ' rjr^ s<v- Chief Justice rr<£u-n— Post for Order: C, /01/2Q1I1 Sd/- •.-—•--:myy-ys-5?~A-u'?''~>">s"trTT'''-T Jifdge ^ /Q1/2011 \^^^ ^'^ / (.+*<.-*..«>.dW HJGH^OAJRT^F CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Appellant Respondents ADpellants Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. M.A. No. 434 of 2003 National Insurance Company Ltd., Through the Branch Manager, B.P. Biswal S/o H.K. Biswal, aged about 37 years, Taha Complex, Opp.: Priyadarshni Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Smt. Tagiya (Thagia) Bai W/o Khour Bhaera Ram Sahu, agedabout 45 years Khour Bhaera Ram Sahu S/o Late Manglu Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years Both R/o Village Baroda P.S. Dharseeme Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents 1 & 2 are the claimants Munna, R/o C/o Metador Transport Agency, Teldhani Naka, Raipur, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) Non-Applicant No.1 in the court below Dinesh Singh S/o Ramlakhan Singh, R/o Near Kushalpur lce Factory, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Non-Applicant No.2 below in the court And M.A. No.442 of 2003 Smt. Thagia Bai, aged about 45 years W/o Khorbahara (Khaur Bhaera)Sahu, Housewife t. • ''*--„.. :'i!;.. ''y'l i;K :! .:.'' .;?' ii..-;':'' :y M.A. No. 434 of 2003 &_M.A,No^442of 2003 Respondents Khorbahara (Khour Bhaera) Ram Sahu, aged 50 years, S/o Mangalu Ram Sahu, Both R/o Baroda, P.s. Dharsiwa Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Versus Munna, Occupation Tata-407 Driver R/o Matador , Transport Agency Telghani Naka, Raipur (CG) Dinesh Singh S/o Ramkhan Singh Owner of Tata-407, R/o Near Kusalpur lce Factory Sunder Nagar, Tehsil&DistrictRaipur(CG) The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, G.E. Road Mobin Mahal, District Raipur (CG) (Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) Appearance: Mr. S.C. Verma and Mr.A.L. Singraul, Advocates forthe claimants. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocates, for the Insurance Company. ORDER (g-.01.2011) Following order of the Court was deliveredl by SunilKumarSinha.J. 1 (1) These appeals have been filed against the award dated 7 of February,2003 passed in Claim Case No. 6/99 by thejFifth Additional Motor Accidenf Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). i'«aN>«inifl"nmTiinn M.A. No.434_of 2003 & M.A. No. 442 of 2003 m (2) M.A. No. 434/2003 has been filed by the Insurance Company for setting-aside the award on the ground of breach of policy condition, whereas M.A. No. 442 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased- Shankar Lal Sahu, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-for his death in the motor accident on 25.4.99 when Tata-407 vehicle bearing registration No.MP 23/2459, in which the deceased was engaged as a labour, met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. The owner and driver remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company opposed the Claim Petition on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving license. The daimants examined Thagiya Bai (AW-1) and Niranjan Lal Sahu (AW-2) in support of their Claim Petition, whereas respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The Tribunal held that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company; the Insurance Company Could not establish any breach of policy conditions; therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation td the claimants. The Tribunal further held that the deceasedlwas earning Rs.100/-per day. By deducting Rs.40/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency| was worked out to Rs.60/- per day. The Tribunal held that the deceased must be getting work for at least 20 days |in a month, therefore, the monthly dependency was workedidut to Rs.1,200/- and the yearly dependency was worked but to Rs.14,400/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 to thjejsaid ~t- (4) M,A. No. 434 of 2001& MA,No,442_oL2003 annual dependency of Rs.14,400/- and the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,72,800/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,82,800/-. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,800/- as compensation to the claimants for death of deceased- Shankar Lal Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. * Mr. S.C. Verma and Mr. A.L Singraul, letrned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, argued that the income was not properly assessed; the deduction was also not proper; therefore, the quantum is in the lower side, which may be suitably enhanced to make it just and proper. (5) On the other hand, Mr.Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu/leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, opposed these arguments. They argued that there was no evidence to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day; the multiplier of 12 is a higher multiplier; and the driver was not having a valid driving license. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the partiesjat length and have alsoperused the records of theclaimcase. (7) So far as liability to pay compensation is concemecl, the Insurance Company pleaded that the vehicte was being plied in ffsassv. ."?H^I!~"'%> ^ '^''•-•^\ V, ./ii -s "'^ \\ >iteS"~Bi> 'i ^ %,. ti.;1 y .' "S,. 9iis^< —j.' M.A..NO. 434 of 2003 &M,A^No.A42_Qf 2003 breach of policy conditions as the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license. But no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said plea raised by the Insurance Company. Even otherwise also, it was not established on record that the driver was not having a valid driving license to drive the offendingvehicle. On the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any fault in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was not established that the driver was having no valid driving license and the vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions. (8) So far as quantum is concerned, the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day by working as a labour in Tata-407 vehicle. Thagiya Bai (AW-1) is the mother of the deceased. She has established that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day. Her evidence has not been rebutted by the respondents. Even in her cross-examination, nothing contrary has been brought on record. The Tribunal has presumed that the deceased must be getting work for 20 days in a month and it has deducted 40% towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. He was aged about 21 years. Even otherwise also, a labourwould have earned Rs.100/- per day in the year 1999. Principatly the deduction would have gone to thSiextent of 50%, but the Tribunal on its own has held that the deceas|ed must be getting work for 20 days in a month and assessed his income as Rs.1,200/-per month. Therefore, the overatl outcome on theproved l»"»».-*^.df- M3flni. ;%,, ;^;:!l^; ;;•„ :1'l»*i"?'.,./' M.A. No. 434 of 2003 &M.A. No. 442 of 2003 facts on record, cannot be said to be unreasonable. We also note that the Tribunal has used multiplier of 12, whereas it would not have gone more that 10 in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Municioal Corooration of Greater Bombav -Vs- Laxman lyer & another. (2003) 8 SCC 731. But on overall view of the entire amount awarded to the claimants,we do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the quantum as 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" eompensation to the genuinej 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. It 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. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various faetors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, 9nd attending peculiaror special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted forassessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the piyotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and| |non- arbitrariness, Please see Stafe of Harvana and anotheK—Vs- Jasbfr Kaur andothers (2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Relbello .p'.a •^.: '""•"""" v "'^ !??* ^ ^^ tjatti M.A.No. 434 of 2003 &MA. No. 442 of2Q03 '?; (Mrs.l andothers -vs- Maharashtra State Road Transoort CorRoratiorL and another. (1999) 1 SCC 90. We are of the view that the overall picture shows that a just and proper compensation has been awarded to the claimants and no case is made out for interference in theamount of compensation. ' (9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeals. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. (10) No orders as to cost(s). Sd/- QuefJustice Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge