’ ‘ ’ State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lahmania Dvi & others k e For conidratiowwd 'Sdl- S_IL KUMAR SINHA ‘ Juge mx 1/ ’ . 59 s/d/ W/l HONBLE SHRI JUSTIGE RAJE§V GUPTA />/ chief Justce ' ‘ 1/2o’6 a /0i € Post for‘ Order: 1/2010 i Sd/- Sunil Kum inh Judge/r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Honble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Honble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 693 of 2004 ORDER sig UN d i 0 ar Sg: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 693 of 2004 ‘ State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Surguja (CG) APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Lakhmania Devi, Wd/o late Nohar t Pratap Singh, aged about 24 years, Caste Gond 2. Ku. Savita, D/o late Nohar Pratap Singh, aged about 4 years (minor) through natural mother and guardian, respondent No.1‘. ‘ Shambhu Singh, S/o late Nohar . Pratap Singh, aged about 3 years, - (minor) through natural mother and guardian, respondent No.17 Claimants 1 to 3 All residents of village Mitgai, Police Ramanujganj, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Surguja (CG) 4. A'nand Kumar Agrawal, S/o Haridas Agrawal,'aged about 32 years, R/o Surajpur,‘ Police Station, Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (CG) 5. Dilbagh Singh, S/o Bahadur Singh, occupation‘ driver, resident of village Soor, Police Station, Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) 6. The Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office” Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Respondents in Claim Petition (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) Appearance: Mr. .Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/appellant.- ‘Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3/Claimants. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.4 None for respondent No. 5. M r. Ajay Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.6. t w ——2L— Misc. A cal No. 693 of 2004 C6») ORDER (3L .01 .2010) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Bieing aggrieved with the award dated 31.1.2004 passe by the Fifth Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Surgujai (CG) in Claim Case No. 1/2002, the State has filed this appeal u/s 173iof the Motor Vehicles Act,‘ 1988. V‘ (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- t :The claimants/respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.9,59,752/- on account of death of Nohar Pratap Singh, in the motor accident which took place on 21 .5.94 when the truck bearing registration No. MPT 9552, in which, the deceased was going with polling party for conducting election met with an accident. Respondents 1 to 3 are wife and minors children of the deceased. The owner filed his written statement taking the plea that his vehicle was requisitioned by the State Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer for election purpose, therefore, the liability to pay compensation would be on the State. e The driver remained ex—parte. The appellant/State opposed the claim petition and denied the factum of accident. lt further denied that deceased Nohar Pratap Singh, who was working as a Patwari, was sent on election duty, therefore, he was required to travel on the said vehicle. Insurer also denied the claim made by the claimants. The Claims Tribunal recorded the findings that the deceased was on election duty and the accident occUrred while the polling d 3 Misc. Appeal No. 693 of 2004 party was being taken for election by the said truck. The Tribunal t on the basis of Ex.-P/5 further held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,278/— per month. After deducting 1/3“ from the said income of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.1,520/— per month and 18,240/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 28 years. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 to the said annual dependency and the compensation was worked out to l Rs.3.28,320/-. By adding further sum of Rs.20,000/— under the l other heads, the otal amoun of compensation was worked out to Rs.3,48,320/—. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% Vr annum from the date o filing of the Claim Petition till its realizations and direct that the said amount would be payable by the appellant/State. pe f (3) Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additiona Advocate General appearing on behlf of the appellant/State, aued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the liality on the. State. H also argued that high amount of mpensation has been awarded andLthe interest @ 9% per annum is also on the higher side. (4) On the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned counsel appearing on behlf of the claiman/espondents 1 to 3, opposed these arguments and supported the award pased by the Claims Tribunal. ‘ s (5 Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. \ ‘i-x (6) fa as liability to pay compensation i concerned, we find that from th certificate issued y the S.D.O. (Ex.—D/1), it was established that truck No. MPT 9552 was requisitioned for election duty and the same met t t 3 ed l a rg bi e co a tsr s ) So r s e b 4 Misc. Appeal N0. 693 of 2004 @5) with an accident on 21.5.94 at 9.00 p.m. The contents of Ex.-P/1 would further show that the deceased, who was working on the post of Patwari PC No. 21, was on election duty as his name has been mentioned in the said document as one of the officers of the polling party, issued by concerlned Election Officer. The contents of Ex.-P/1 (order in Schedule [1]) byi Election Officer showing the deceased as a member of the polling party as also Ex.-D/1 issued by S.D.O. regarding the vehicle requisitioned by him have not been disputed. Therefore, it was established that the decease‘d‘ was a member of polling party and the said vehicle was requisitioned for the purpose of election. it further comes in the evidence of Lakhmania Devi (AW-1, wife of the deceased) and Laxman Ram (AW— 2) that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and the deceased was traveling on the said truck along with polling party which was going for conducting election. Laxman Ram (AW-2), who was~also traveling on the said truck, has proved these facts. Therefore, it was further established that the accident occurred while the vehicle was taking the polling party of which the deceased was also a member. (7) ln National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Vs- Deepa Devi and Others, {2008) 1 SCC 414, the Apex Court held that “ln a situation when the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act, the owner does not exercisenaxny control over the vehicle. The driver may I l still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the Officer of the State,'who is put in-charge thereof.” The Apex Court said that “Save and except for legal ownership, for all ‘ l 5 ——np—« Misc. A eal N0. 693 of 2004 w intent énd purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereoVer and if in such a situation the statutory definition contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view.” The Apex Court held that iri a case like that, “the State shall be liable to pay amount of i compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the l vehicle." Therefore, in the present case also, the Tribunal has rightly held that the liability to pay compensation was on the State and not on the u . registered owner or insurer of the said vehicle. (8) So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the same. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,278/— on the basis of contents of pay certificate (Ex.-P/5) which has not been disputed by any party. The Tribunal has deducted usual 1/3’d which also appears to be proper. Admittedly the deceased was aged about 28 years and the claimants, i.e. were wife and two minor children have been shown to be aged about 24, 3 & 4 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal also appears to be . proper. a (9) So far as interest @ 9% per annum is concerned, Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides, where the claim for compensation made under the Act is allowed by the Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. The provisiOns require payment of interest in addition to compensation and a duty is laid down on the Tribunal to consider the ix 6 Misc. Appeal No. 693 0f 2004 cw§ question of interest separately with due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court held in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Vs- Keshav Bahadur, (2004) 2 SCC 370 that the provisions of payment of interest is discretionary and is not and cannot be bound by rules. No rate of interest is fixed u/s 171 of the Act l and the duty has been bestowed upon the Tribunal to determine such i rate of interest. The Supreme Court held that in order to determine such rate, the prevailing rate of bank interest at the relevant time has to be considered. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when accident took place in the year 1994 and the award was passed in the year 2004, we deem it appropriate to award the interest @ 6% per annum which in our opinion would serve the interest ofjustice. (10) The appeal med by the appellant/State, therefore, is allowed in part. The award passed by the Tribunal in relation to liability and quantum of compensation is hereby confirmed. However, it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit of the amount with the Claims Tribunal which has already been deposited by the State. The amount to which the claimants shall be entitled would be adjusted in the said amount. (11) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (12) There shall be no order as to costs. l . Sdl- Chief Justice ‘1