lUiiiWNniinmriinr ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC.No. 1508of2009 APPELLANTS Smt. Sunita & others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Dayanand and others & M.A.C.No. 1416 of 2009 APPELLANTS RESP^NDENTS The New India Insurance Company Limited. VERSUS Shri Sakun Ram and others AWARD Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. 3 <^c^-_ Sd/- Chief Jiistice For consideration 6 ' 09.201 1 —Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Post for: 7 .09.20^ Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^ .09.2011 ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C.No.1508 of 2009 APPELLANTS Claimants RESRONDENTS 1. Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Sakunram, aged about 30 years 2. Shri Sakun Ram S/o late Shri Akluram, aged about 34 years, 3. Sukhmani Bai W/o Late Shri Akluram, aged about 55 years, All R/o Village Kunkuri, Mohalla, Bedarbhadra, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). VERSUS 1. Dayanand S/o Chandralal, BMN Transport, Chirmiri, Distt. Korea (CG) (Vehicle Owner) 2: Jai Singh S/o Rammehar Singh, aged about 21 years, Village Barhan, Distt.lnjjar, Haryana. Through Presently R/o A.R Bhalla Transport Nagar, Korba (CG). (Vehicle Driver). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Raipur, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur (CG). Through: Divisional Office T.P. Nagar, Korba (Cp) (Insurer of Vehicle). Present ': Smt. Meena Shashtri, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sthivendu Pand^a, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ^ APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Claimants & M.A.C.No. 1416 of 2009 The New India Insurance Company Limited. Through: Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. Shri Sakun Ram S/o late Akluram, aged about 34 years, occupation Labour. 2. Smt. Sunita W/o Shakunram, aged about 30 years, occupation house wife. 3. Smt. Sukhmani Bai Wd/o Shri Akluram, aged about 55 years, occupation-house wife. All R/o Village Kunkyri, Mohalla, Bedarbhadra, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). 4. Dayanand S/o Chandulal, BMN Transport, Chirmiri, Distt. Korea (CG) 5. Jai Singh S/o Rammehar Singh, aged about 21 years, Village Bai:han, Oistt.lnjjar, (Haryana). Throvgh-at present residing at A.R Bhalla Transport Nagar, Korba (CG). fAPFEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES^CB (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Guota. CJ. & • Hon'bleMr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) (Owner) (Driver) ^ 11 i •; [• :. il •^ Present : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. Meena Shashtri, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 3. AWARD (Delivered on^_/09/2011) Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. MA(C) No. 1508/2009 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Addl. Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Camp Court, Kunkuri (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 66/07 vide award dated 25.07.2009 whereas MA(C) No. 1416/2009 has beenpreferred by the appellanVlnsurer of offending vehicle challenging his liability for payment of compensation fastened upon it in the above award. 2. Both the appeals were filed against the same award passed by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. As against compensation of Rs. 19,16,000/- claimed by claimants i.e. unfortynate uncle, aunty and grandmother of deceased Rajesh by filing apptieation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act'), for his death in the motor accident on 01.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment against the respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurer of offending Truck bearing registration No. CG-16-A-4755 holding them jointly ancL severally liable for payment of compensatjon to the claimants. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the acddent had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck bearing registration No. CG-16-A-4755; insurance company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as respondent/ insurance company failed to prove violation of policy conditions; taking into consideration notjonal income as prescribed in llnd Schedule annexed with Section 163-A of the MV Act assessed income ofthe deceased as Rs. 15000/- per annum; after deducting usual 1/3 of it towards personal and living expenses of the deceased claimants annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,QOO/- per annum; taking into consideratjon the age of the deceased as 20 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 16, and thus awarded Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 5000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application till it$ actual payment. Smt. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in MA(C) No. 1508/09 would submit : the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in notawarding adequate amount towards other head?, and thus has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensatjon. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for appellant/The New India Insurance Company Limited jn MA(C) Nb. 141^/09 and Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel j !P "I appearing for respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Company Limited would submit: the accident had occurred due to head on collision between two vehicles i.e. Truck bearing registration No. CG-16-A-4755 being driven by respondent No. 5 and Matuti Van bearing registration No. CG-14-9893 being driven by deceased Rajesh, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held both the drivers equally negligent to the cause of accident and ought to have deducted 50 percent of the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded by it towards contributory negligence of the deceased Rajesh. 7. we have heard the learned counselappearing for the parties, perused the award jmpugned as well as records of the Tribunal. 8. We shall first examine sufficiency or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. True, the clalmants pleaded deceased Rajesh used to earn Rs. 4500/- per month from his occupation as driver, but no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above income of the deceased Rajesh, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the approach of Tribunal in not accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month. 10. Nevertheless, deceased was driver in the year 2007 i.e. year of accident and in our opinionhe could have been easily earned Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum by his occupation as driver, therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking in to consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. T"£^^^^ f^ ^ fi^ssyi^ j ^ 'J1/ :ir^F ^. 11. The daimants are uncle, aunty and grandmother of deceased and as per evidence adduced in the case they were dependent upon the deceased Rajesh who was unmarried at the time of accident, therefore, after deducting 50 percent of income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, claimants annual dependency is assessedat Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. By applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the facts and cteGurnstances of the present ca§eas itlte claimants are uncle, aunty and granclmother of deceased Rajesh who was unmarried at the time of accident. By applying muitiplter of 10, the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency works out to Rs. 1,80,000^-, by adding further amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards other heads (Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate), total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,9Q.O©lO^. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,65,000/-, therefore, th^ atnount of compensation which the claimants are further entitled to rece^e isf?s. 25,000/-. 12. bearned counsel for the parties submmed that with a view to avoid any p©s§ibledispute between the parties about the period for which tNe claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhance^ amount of compensation, theamount of interest on the enhanceGl amovnt of compensation may be quantified in this appeat itself. '^\ 13. Considering all the relevant factors, we quantify the ^mount of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 25.000/- at Rs. 3,000/-. 14. Now coming to the question whether or not deceased Rajesh contributed to the cause of accident, we have perused the records of Tribunal. Police case was registered against the offending Truck. Claimants have examined eye witness Mohd. Irfan who was occupant of Maruti Van. He has categorically deposed that Maruti Van was running on his side and was dashed by Truck in question and the Truck driver was negligent in the said accident. Appellant/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. did not examine any witness in support of his contention that the driver of Maruti Van was also equally negligent to the cause of accident in absence whereof it cannot be presumed that the Maruti Van driver i.e. deceased Rajesh was also contributed to the cause of accident, and in our opinion, the above plea raised by Shri Sourabh Sharma is sans substance. 15. For the foregoing reasons, MA(C) No. 1508/09 filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 3,000/- on the enhanced amount of Rs. 25.000/-, and MA(C) No. 1416/2009 preferred by the appellant/The New India Assurance Company is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 16. The"New India Assurance. Company Limited is granted 3 months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 28.000/- (Rs. 25,000/- ^ ^ 17. towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 3,0007- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd7----~ N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu