-^is?-^ HIGHCQURTQFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon^ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Misc.AppealNo, 440 of 2003 (<., Smt. Hari Priya Kar & Others Vs. Jagjivan Kumar Bairagi & Others ORDER ^-,. For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ HON»BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 3 ^^y^-- sd^- Ctorf ^ce Post for Order:J^03/2010^ 1 Sd/- 1 SunilKumarSinha Judge ..^.^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 6& Hon^ble Shri Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J, APPELLANTS Claiinants 1. Misc. Appeal No. 440 of 2003 1. Smt. Hari Priya Kar W/o Late Ashok Kar, Age about 28 years 2. Ku. Reena Kar D/o Late Ashok Kar, Age 7 years 3. Ku. Rinky Kar D/o Late Ashok Kar, Age 5 years 4. Ku. Reenu Kar, D/o Late Ashok Kar, Age 4 years 5. Sandeep Kar S/o Late Ashok Kar, Age 3 years (No. 2 to 5 minors their Gaurdian Smt. Hari Priya Kar) 6. Smt. Sona Bai Kar W/o Late Bhagwan Kar, Age about 55 years (Mother of deceased) all are residents of Village Bhokludih, P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Jagjivan Kumar Bairagi S/o Amardas Bairagi, Age 28 years, R/o Village Athaar, District- Ludhiyand (Punjab) Af present resident of Body Works, Vaddi Nagpur (M.S) 2. Ramtirth Bawa S/o. Unknown C/o Vishvakarma Body Works, Vaddi Nagpur (M.S.) 3. The National Insurance Compan}/r Ltd. Divisional Office, Babla Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Jitendra Nande, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. None for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate for respondent No.S/Insurance Company. RESPONDENTS Non-Claiinants -v.z '^ ^ '^•^.^- '^^^' ^^ L /"' Misc. Appeal No. 440 of 2003 ORDER ( ^ .0^.2010) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No, 13/2002 on 23rd ofJanuary, 2003. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Appellants are the widow, minor children and mother of deceased- Ashok Kar. They filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for death of the deceased in motor accident which took place on 26.4.2002 when Rajdut motorcycle, on which, the deceased was traveling was dashed by the offending Truck bearing registration No. CG-4/6207 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver. The deceased was a school teacher and was earni ng Rs.6,928/- per month. The claim was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver; the truck was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants. On documentary evidence, after making usual deductions from the last drawn salary of the deceased, the net Income of the deceased was held as Rs.6,108/- per month. By deducting about 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 32 years. By applying multiplier of 15 to the said annual j T- .-. v "^ "'^^^'^ L-. Misc. Appeal No. 440 of 2003 dependency of Rs.48,000/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under other heads and total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.7,40,000/- However relying on ajudgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court {Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. -Vs- Uma Viias and others, 1996 ACJ, 363), the Tribunal made a lump-sum deduction of Rs.2,40,000/- and awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the appellants on account of death of deceased Ashok Kar 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. (3) Mr. Jitendra Nande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in making lump-sum deduction of Rs 2,40,000/- even after calcylating the compensation as Rs.7,40,000/-. The deduction was without any basis, therefore, the entire amount of compensation, assessed by the Tribunal, should have been awarded to the appellants. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at lengtli and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) In Uma Vyas (supra), the deceased was a ^Captain in army and was aged about 33 years. He was drawing Rs.5,735/- per •••^.-h ,s':./" c...., Misc. Appeal No. 440 of 2003 month and was getting free ration, furnished accommodation, medical services and other benefits also. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs.4,000/-per month and adopted multiplier of 24 and then made 20% deduction for lump-sum payment and uncertainties of life and awarded Rs. 10,00,OOO/-. In appeal, the High Court reduced the multiplier to 16 and made 20% deduction and reduced the award amount from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.6,15,000/-. We note that in the said case, the accident took place in the year 1991; the facts relating to the income of the deceased were entirely different; and the deceased was an army personnel. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment was not applicable in the present case. (7) The practice of deduction for lump-sum payments from the amount of compensation awarded in motor accident cases by the Tribunal has beeh disapproved by the Supreme Court in several decisions (See - Hardeo Kaur and Others -Vs- Rajasthan STC and Another, (1992) 2 SCC 567; Renu^Bala KalitcifSmt) and Others -Vs- Dhiren Chakravarty and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 363; Urmilla Pandey and Others -Vs- Khalil Ahmeda and Others, f 1994) 4 SCC 207 & Rai Rani and Others -Vs Oriental Insurance Companu Limited and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 654). (8) The Tribunal, therefore, fell into error by applying the said judgment for a lump-sum deduction of Rs.2,40,000/- from the compensation calculated in the present case. In our considered J^ ^ vattl ^ Misc. Appeal No. 440 of 2003 opinion, the appellants/claimants were entitled to receive the full amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal and nothing was required to be deducted in lump-sum from the said amount on uncertainties of life. (9) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed., The appellants/claimants would get a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- more as compensation being the amount of difference which the Tribuncil has wrongly deducted in this matter. The appellants shall also get interest on the said amount of Rs.2,40,000 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe Claim Petition till realization. (10) No order as to cost. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge