'i^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc,_Appeal No.459 of 2005 APPELLANTS (Claiinants) Sukhalram and another Versus RESPONDENTS (Non-applicants) Sohan Ram and others. AWARD For consideration *7 -9-201 1 Sd/- N.K.Agrawaj Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta Sd/- ~~~~ ciiiefJustice -9-2uii ^*.ia^;4''c^-i^^ Post for pronouncement ofAward: S -9-2011 Sd/- Judge 7 -9-2011 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 459 of 2005 APPELLANTS (CLAJMANTS) RESPONDENTS (NON APPLICANTS) 1. Sukhalram S/o Bandhan Kunwar, aged about 45 years, 2. Saniyaro, W/o Sukhal, aged about 42 years, Both by caste Kanwar, R/o village Kunwarpur, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Sohan Ram. S/o Chilu, Caste Kanwar, aged about 55 years, 2. Lalit S/o Botsai, Caste Kanwar, aged about 30 years, Respondents No.l 85 2 R/o Village Kunwarpur, P.S. LaKhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.) 3. The United India Insurance company through its Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Branch Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Smt. Kaleshwari, w/o Shri Nath, aged about 22 years, C/o Shri Nath, S/o Shridhar Kanwar, R/o village Nimha, post - Jamidih, P.S. Udaypur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (CLAIMANT) Coraxn: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J Y PRESENT:- Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the appellants. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 AWARD (Passedon? -9-2011) Per N.K. Aearwal, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 15/2004 vide award dated 24.12.2004 and its distribution among appellants and respondent No.4, the instant appeal has been preferred by the unfortunate parents of the deceased - Kaleshwar. 2. As against compensation of Rs.12,10,000/- claimed by the parents and widow of deceased - Kaleshwar by filing claim application 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'fhe Act'), the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,17,360/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment and apportioned it between parents and widow of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,17,360/- respectively after adjusting Rs.50,000/- already deposited by respondent No.S/insurance company as no fault compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). ^ '^ ft' 'f .iS?"' n 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No. C.G.15A/2334 by respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the vehicle; Kaleshwar, aged about 22 years, died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensation as respondent No.3 could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed the income of deceased as Rs.1440/- per raonth and Rs.17,280/- per annum; deducted l/3t'd ofit towards personal expenses offhe deceased; applied multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.2,07,360/- on account of loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and thus has awarded Rs.2,17,360/- as total compensation to the claimants and respondent No.4. After adjusting no fault compensation of Rs.50000/- apportioned remaining amount of compensation of Rs.1,67,360/- in the ratio of Rs.50,000 : Rs.1,17,360/- between the parents and respondent No.4 i.e. widow of deceased. 4. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.1440/- per month only and in awarding low ainount of compensation; in apportioning the u^ •SSS3 award amount of compensation in the ratio of Rs.50,000 : Rs.1,17,360/- between the appellants and respondent No.4. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported the award and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the araoiint of compensation awarded by fhe Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. Earlier respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Liinited has preferred an appeal i.e. M.A. No.226/2005 against the award impugned. However, the above appeal filed by respondent No.3 - insurance company has been withdrawn on 16.11.2005. Therefore, the findings regarding liability of respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited recorded by the learned Tribunal have now attained finality. 8. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants i.e. parents of deceased - Kaleshwar. Widow of Kaleshwar did not prefer any appeal. As per evidence of clainiant No.l - Sukhalram (A.W.l) i.e. father of deceased, he is having 3 sons excluding deceased Kaleshwar. He and his elder son - Tapeshwar are agriculturists and labourers; his wife Saniyaro is also a labourer; deceased was doing agricultural work and occasionally was also working as labourer. Later on, it has been stated, deceased Kaleshwar was working only as labourer. The above evidence shows, appellants are earning members, having major sons, were not dependents upon deceased Kaleshwar. 9. In the light of above evidence, the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.1440/- per month and Rs.17,280/- per annum cannot found fault with. The learned Tribunal has further deducted usual l/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Considering the age of deceased as 22 years and ignoring age of the appellants applied multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.2,07,360/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further ; awarded Rs.10,000/- on other heads and thus has awarded total sum ofRs.2,17,360/- as compensation to the claimants, which, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate and there is no scope of enhancement of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Further, looking to the fact that appellants were not dependents upon deceased, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal was quite liberal in awarding Rs.50,000/- in favour iiii^ u0 v\7 of the appellants, out of the total compensation of Rs.1,67,360/- after adjusting Rs.50,000/- awarded as no fault compensation froin total compensation of Rs.2,17,360/- and distribution made by the learned Tribunal among appellants and respondent No.4, therefore, also does not warrant any interference of this Court. 11. For the foregoing, the appeal preferred by the appellants i.e. parents of deceased - Kaleshwar fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge -MlSllf