HIC.H COURT OF CaiPATnsGJUtH. BILAtffUR Divlalon Bweh: Hoa'bte Shil I«.C.BI»adoo& Hon'bte Stel Siudl KamW SinIia^J. MA.(Ct No. 743 of 2007 Daulateain Vidhaiu & Anofher Versus Dhaapat Ral & CMiiers ORDER Order &r coiisideratxm Sd/- Juage J..09.2007 Hon'bte Shrl L.C. Bhadoo. J. ^ e L/-^^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge PostAiLQrdro_3_^,2007 i Sd/- J; Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIC8H COURT OF CaiHATnSGARH. BU^BPVR DIVISION BBKGH: HOM'BLB SHRI L.C. BHADOO & HOM'BLE 8HRI SinUL KUMAR SUIHA. JJ. APPBLLANT8 CLAIMAHT8 RE8POMDENTS NOH-CLAIMAM'ra MA.(CI »o.743 ofSSTOT 1. DaulatFam Vjdhaui, aged about 45 years Son of Latc Not Kncwn Vidluiai 2. Sint. Sushila Devi, aged about 40 years Wife of Daulateam Vidhani Both resideut ofTorwa Puinp House, Bilaspur Tahsil and Dtetrict Bilaspur (C.G.) VCTSUS 1. DIunpat Rai Son of Pyarelal Ranmfle, scged about 4S years, Resident of Populat &»ciely Naka No.IO Wadi (Near Nak^, Plot No.27, Anuavati Road, Nagpur (Maharashtr^. (DMVBR) 2 Shri Jaipal Sii^h Son of Suiender Singh, Resident of Gunxnanak Nagar, Near Qurudwaia, Raipur, Through: Bombsy - Odya G.E. Road iAaes, Chhokra Nala, Raxpur (C.O.) (OWIIBR) 3 The Branch Manager, The Orieatal Insuraace Conapany Limited, Brauch Officer 2 Madina Biuldmg, Jsdl Road Raipiu- (C.G.), ttuough: Branch Office, Rajiv FSazaL, Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.) (U18URBR) (APPEAL OniffiR SBCTKMI 173 OF TBE atOTOR VBBICUSS ACT. 19881 Aooearance: Shri P.K. Tulsgrad, couasel fcr fhe appeVants. SIui Sudhir ^ranral, counsel for respondent No.3. M.A.(C) No. 743 af2007 ORDBR (03.09.a00'7) FoUowing Order of tfae Court was delivered by SnaII Kwnar Sinlia. J. (1) This appeal is duected against the awanl dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Secoiid Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, Bilaspxir in M.A.C.C. No. 1/2006, whercby, the TrBiunal has awarded a szun ofRs.3,91,000/- to fhe appeflants, atoxig wifh the interest @ 6% per anniim ftom. (he date offOmg of (he Claim Pctition tiB its reaHzatioii, on accoiurt ofdeafh oftheir soa nainety- Jiteiidia@ Jitu. (2) The cIaimaals/appeUants hawe fifed fhfe appeal for erihancement of the award, wheieas, respondent No.3, fhe Insurance Coaipany, Iias fited a CTOss-objcction chalfengiiig the award on uiany giounds. (3) The brief facts are fhat on 02.07.2006, fhe deceased iiainefy- Jitendia @ Jitu was traveBng atong wifh nnany fi-iends ia QuaUis No. CG-04/A-7511. They were going fiom Raipur to Nagpur, On fhe 'wsy, this vehicte met wtfh an accident, when tt was dashed by Truck No. CG-04 2^3 5431 driven by respondent No.l, owned by tespondent No.2 and uisured by respondent No.3. Four persons, namefy- Jitendia @ Jitu, Rajesh Nimani, Ghanshyam & Mittal Patel died in the said accident. Ofher persoiis also received serious iajuries, who weie adnutted in Nt^piir HospitaL A crinuaEil case was titeo i^istered against respondent No.l vUe Ciime No. 126/2006 of P.S. Mauda, Ns^pur (Mahacashtr^ imder Scctfons 279, 337, 3W & 304-1 I.P.C. and fhe chaige-sheetwas fited m Na@>ur Courfc (4) The clannants/appeBants, who are father and mother of fhe dcGeased, fited the Claim Pfctition on the grouiKl that the deceased was eanung Rs.8,000/- per month as he was woildng and lookiag after fhe Stone Ciasher of appcBaat No. 1 and M.A.fQ No. 743 of2007 aaving a salaiy of Rs.8,000/-, wliich would havc been pakl to the other peisons. Apart fi»in this, he was also eaining Rs.5,000/- ttuougfa the coxnmission by seUu^ aad suppfying bricks of two diflferent industries, tbeteby his total eaming was Rs. 13.000/- per month. The deceased was a giwluate aiul fhe appellants ha»ebeen deprwed £pomtfae said contributton made by the deceased to their fanufy. Thcy baye ctanned tbe amoiint of(»mpensatk>nunder the foltowing heads: i) ") i^ i») V) on account oftosa ofeaniiag Rs. 31,20,000/- on accotint of bru^ng of Rs. 10,000/- dead body on account of last rituals and other functions of fhc deceascd on aocount of kwe and affectiaa Rs. 50.000/- Rs. 50,000/- oa account ofmental agony Rs. 1,00,000/- Totat R».33,80,000/- (S) Respondents No. 1 & 2 remained exparte. Respondent No.3, Insiaance Conipany fited its written stateinent aftcr taking permissmn under Sectioa 170 ofthe Motor Vahicks Act and has deiued the total claim. of the appdlants on merits. Apart fioin resistence of the clauas on inerits, it had also rafaed objection (hat the owner, driver aad Insuraace Coinpany of QiiaBis WMC nccessaiy parties. (6) The Tribunal, after fiamiiig various issues and aftcr taking evidence, recorded a finduig fhat the accident had occurred due to rasb and negt^ent driving of fhc Truck, therefore, thc owner and the Insuraace Coinpany of fhe QuaBis wcre not necessaiy parties and the insurer of fhe Truck ie. respondent No.3 is Uable to pay (»inpensationon account ofdeath of the son of the appeBaats. M.A.fCTNo. 743 of2007 (7( So far as quantum is concemed, the Tribuiial asse^sed tfae monthty income of fhe deceased as Ra.3,000/- and tfaereby Rs.36,000/- per year and afler dediKtion of l/3yi ua Rs.24,000/- appBcd the mxiltipBer of 16 and worked out tfae toss of eaming in sum of Rs.3,84,000/-. It awarded I^.2,000/- as the fiineral expeuses and Rs.5,000/- on Eucount of kwe and afiGsctton aad in fhis mauner a total sum ofRs.3,91,000/- atong with mterest @ 6% per annnm feoia the date of appKcatton tiB ita realization has been awaidcd. (8| Leacaed counscl for fhe appeUants aigued tiiat the iacome has beea assessed at the tower aade. He also argued that no aaiount has been awarded on accouut of bringmg af the dead body finrn Nagpur to Bilaspar. He iurther aigued fhat ttac amount awaided towards love and affectfam fa also on the tower side. (9) On the other hand, tearaed counsel for thc Insurancc Conipany, who has fited cross-objection, aigued fhat the hi^ier multiptier has been used and the income has also been assessed on the higher side. (10} We faave hcard fhe leamed couasel &r the partfes at tength on the appeal as weU as cross-objection and have ateo perused the recotds ofthe TribunaL (11) So feu- as assessment ofmonlhty inconie ofthe deceased te coaccmcd, it has bcen deposed by appcflant No.l that oa account of woridng of fhe deceased in has Crasher, he was savixig Rs.8,000/- per aionfh and ia fhfa maxmer, tbe deceaaed was oontributmg Rs.8,000/- per month for thenu. He ateo dcposed that the deceased was eng^ed ia bricks suppty business by which he wes eanung Rs.5,000/- per monlli as additioiial incoine. 5 M.A.ffilNQ.743 af2007 (13) Admittedfy, the Cresbei was on fhe name of fafher of the deceased and he was paying inoome tax ete. on account of eaming fiom the said busiiwss but he could not fBe any docuiaentaiy evidence to show that in fect, cifher Rs.8,000/- per monfh was being paid to tfae deceased or in any manner, fhe deceased was saving fhe amouat to the said exteat by particq>ating in the business of his feifher. So fer as eaming fix>ni commission by seUing bricks is owicemed, onc KiAore Victham Iias been examined as AW-4, who was the Brick Industiy owner. Hc has steted that fhe peisoiis, who used to purohase (Stty (brohen pieces of crushed stoiie) 6xas. the industiy of fafher of fhc dec»ased, they also used to purchase bricfcs ete., whfch was suppUed by him fhxou^i ffae deceased aad by fhis a coHunisafon ofRs.2,5(X>/- to Rs.3,000/- was beii^ paid by fhein to fhe deceascd. in the ctoss-Qeammatan, Iss has adautted that he used to inaintain the tegister, whteh was ia. relation to mmii^ work but he has no dociuaeats or cateubtion pprtnining to paynient ofthe said mmmfeaainn. The mother oftfae deceased nainefy- Sushila Devi has also been exanuned as AW-2 but she has not deposed a smgle word pertaiBing to tbie iacx>me ofthe deceascd. (13) It is on this evidence, the Tribtinal,after appreciation,dKl not believe that ia fact, fhe deceased was coalributmg in the Crasher business ia such a mann.er that he was saving/eaming Rs.8,000/- per month. The factam of eamiag by connnissfon was also not betieved by fhe Tribuxial. Tbe Tnbuxial, on its owa, after asseasing the cwer-aU cucuinstances aad after perusing the business paper of the appellants and fhe fact that tfae deceased was confcributmg in the btisiness ofhis fafhcr, in absence ofany evideitce of fhe particular quantum of contribatfon, tookmg to the age of thc deceased, assessed a sum of Rs.3,000/- per inonth as fhe iat»m.e of fhe deceased. The sdiove assessinent made by fhe Tnbuaal does not appear to bc uureasonabfc or lugust on fhe one hand and on other hand, it can also not be M.A.fCTNo. 743 of2007 Y said to be on the h%her side. Therefore, Itoe arguments advaaced by the teained counsel for thc appeBants as also the Insurancc Coiapany regaiding assessinent ofauonthfy nncoine of the deceased to be unjiKt or unpioper caimot be a<a»pted. (14j So far as raultipUer is conGemed, alnuttedty the deceased was uiuaarried, graduate and was detennined to be aged about 23 yeara. Tbc Tribunal has also determiDed the age of the appelfants to be 50 yeara aml 40 years on the date offiBng ofthc affidavit and has uaed ibe laultfpUer of 16. The afiuiavit was filed on 13.2.2007, whereas fhe accident took placc on 2.7.2006. In thc Claiin Petitma, which waa fifed on 15.9.2006, the ages of the appcllants have been mentuned as 45 years and 40 ycars. Therefiire, fhe aveiage ay: of fhe appeflant No. l can ^ifety be held in betiseen 48 to 50 yeara aud appeBant No.2 ia between 39 to 40 years on the date of incideat and in these cucumstaiices tooking to the over-aU situalion and the Motor Veludes Act being a benevolent legislatwn, the Tribunal has righfty applfed the muMiplier of 16. It is also justified on &e togic fhat had fhis being a claan on behalf of appellant No.2 onty, who was adniittedty held to be aged about 40 years by the Tribunal, the m.ultiplier good for her caae was 16. Therefore, usiag such naultiplier by the Tribunal cannot bc said to be wrong or a h^her inultiplicr in the pievaQaa^ facts and circumstances of fhis case. The aiyunents advauced by the learaed counsel for the Insurance Company that fhe niultiplier was hjgher, cannot be accepted. (15) So feu- as expenses on account ofbringmg of tfae dead body fix>ni Nagpur to Bilaspur is coDccrDed, admittedty the Tribunal has not awarded any ainount for the same. The dead body was brought CmajL Nagpur to Bflaspur and on this cotint, Rs. l0,000/- has been clauned by fhe appellants. Lookn^ to the long distance in bctween theae two places, we deein it proper to aBow Rs. 10,000/-. As far as quantuia on flGCOiint ofkwe and affection is conceraed, tfae Tribunal has awarded as Rs.5,000/-, which M.A.fCTNo. 743 of2007 appears to be on fhe lower side. We are of the considered view that thM quantuin tnust be iacreased looldng to the fact that a youngboy, aged about 23 years has expired aad fhe inother and father are the claunaats. We deem it proper to aBow Rs. l0,000/ - each to appeBants No. 1 & 2 on fhis count instead of Rs.5,000/-. (16| In the result, fhe appeal is partfy aBawed. The claanante/appeBants shall be eatitled to receivc Rs.3,84,000/- towaids loss of eammg, Rs.2,000/- towaids funeial expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards cost iaciured in bringing llie dead body to Bfl^piu- and Rs.20,000/- on account of love and aflfection. In ttus naanner, the total amount of coinpensation asraried by the Claims Tribunal is eiihanced by Rs. 25,000/- and to fhis esctent the awanl stands modi&ed and the appeal stands aUowed. The cross-objartion has no force, the same deserves to be dismissed aad is accordmgfy dismissed. (17( No costs. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vattt