7,7 0 BIAU D!V!S!ON BENCH CORAM: HGN‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON’aLE SHRI RL JHANWAR, J. Misc Anpeai No.49 of 2006 Apnellants 1 Bhushan Lai Dhimar. S/o Kondaram Ciaimants Dh‘imar, aged about 4O years 2 Smt Sitabai, W/o Bhushanlai Dhimar Aged a3? years Both rlo Viilage — Bhainsbod, PO Owari, PS Bhakhara, present address Village Nawagaon, Tah Mahasamund,’ D£stt Mahasamund (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Rajaram Sahu, Sio Deveva Sahu Non-appellants aged abqut 29 years ViHage Dhansuii, F’S Mandir Hasod, Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) 2. Ram'avtar Agrawal, S/o NL Agrawal, ‘ ' R/o Mandir Hased, Distt Raipur (CG) National insurance Co., Division Office No.1, Naveen Bazar Fui Chowk, GE Road, Raipur, Distt Raipur(CG) Misceiianeous Aggeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 ’Present : Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsei forthe appeiiants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (8th Jury, 2009) The foilowing order of the Court was passed b Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants’ appeal for enhancement ‘of the ricompensation awarded by the Second Additionat Motor Accident R y 7 ,itg @ , “M Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short, “the Tribunal”), vide award datgd 29.10.2005 passed in Claim Case No.1 14/2005. 2) The appeilants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased girl Kum Lata, aged about 10 years claimed compensation of Rs10,20,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death;in the motor accident when the bicycle on which she was traveling was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-04—J-0171, resulting in her instantaneous death on the spot itself. \The claimants claimed that their daughter was aged about 18 years and used to earn rupees 70-80 per day as labourer. 3) The owner and driver of the offending vehicle truck did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex—palte before the Tribunal. 4) The insurer of the truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving license and the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 5) The claimants examined AW/1 Bhushan Lal and AWI2 Arjun Kumar in support of their claim whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that claimants’ daughter Kum.Lata died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 20.05.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with National insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal on the basis of the age mentioned in the postmortem report held that ciaimants’ daughter Kum.Lata was aged about 10 years on the date of the accident and was student of 5th standard. The Tribunai holding that the deceased had no independent income of her own, awarded a‘ sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunai further awarded ' Rs.2,000/— towards funeral expenses3f The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.52,000l- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of Rs.52,000i- from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.52,000/— only; as the appellants’ daughter was a brilliant student and had a bright future. 9) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation as claimants’ daughter deceased Lata had no income of her own at the time of the accident. 10) The tindingrecorded by the Tribunal that claimants’ daughter Kum.‘ Lata died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 20.05.005 is founded on the eyewitness account i§li itxv . of AW/1 Bhushan Lal and AW/2 Arjun Kumar. The liability of insurer of the offending vehicle truck has been held by the Tribunal on the basis of the policy issued by respondent No.3 - National insurance Company Limited. 11) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings. 12) The claimants, unfortunate parents of the deceased Kum.Lata though claimed that theirridaughter was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident, in the postmortem report she was shown to be aged about 10 years. The compensation of Rs.52,000/— awarded by the Tribunal for the death of appellants’ daughter Kum Lata, aged about‘10 years in our opinion is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 13) Considering the age of the deceased and the appellants, we are of the considered view that further award of Rs.20,000/- along with quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/— in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal would be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. _ 15) The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs;72,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,0DO/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20.,000/—. ‘!\ 1 16) Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited is granted two months‘ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.23,000l- (Rs,20,000i- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- ) before the concerning claims Tribunai. padma 17) No order as to costs. ' 5d;- RL. Jhanwar Sd/— Judge Chief Justice \