^: COURT OF CHHATTIS Sjngle Bencn : Hon'bla Shri Diiip Raosahec Deshmukh.J. fWlscellaneous Aoseal (C.i No.1281/2087 Ku. Rigmati versus Govind Ram Sahu and others Post for pronoiincement of order Lo -02-2009 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge WI-) ^r'il 3S;T r^-g f^MU^TT^ "tia/'^s^. a ^k^I' '!i^S~lS~lf^. n i B' l%t3JM?^.sa°i f°4 1 iPUB ^ffiisa H^an^h * ^.fs^ h*?a Shri QH"?^- R^-fs^^h^h 0-?si??h?TS!!ikh- J S»d^3^» ^ri?^a i^frs i ^ i •~s'^^ ^_^A^..'*sy.i.^ .3 nflf:3i ^=F<^ s 'ia.^?i^w?'J^i s'-^tf^ a^'^-fc?^ ^ zds'^l'I^i ^ ^ ^?J * Sd.s i'St^'- ^i^ '-. ^i-.. 2 "ita^ »i i °^^> ^i V^- ^ t -f*^ -^* *^ 'al •'i^i'e^fSit^SKS -. il. s:i-iesp-onaents Non-aoDiican' versus F^U. F\!M^>SSi,i lj?U a-^ii.^ i't?i^U<>lU (Vyrongiy mentioned m trte cause t;i!e as husband instead of father), aged about 10 years, Minor, Through her legai representativs- Maternal grandfather Shri Ghudaram Korra.m @ Bhuluram, S/o Late Masuram, Caste Muriya, Ased about 62 vears and Maternai arandmother Smt. Moaari Bai Korrani, W/o Shri Ghuduram Korram @ Bhuiuram, aged about 55 years, Caste Murlya, Ali above resident ofviiiage Bade Bhirav/and, Poiice Station Batna. lansii 'f- ir »'Tk f^ Ot«lSi,^3i 't^wT.^J. uagaon, i-ost ], District Govind Ram Sahu. S/o Ramda' V$3fS, r ^.?"1: ?'' -s F'! "i; 5 •r\'^f's 'sSil'is^'^.i . H>siEpU? ^iu'.^?.j! about 46 Ubhsrpara, ~f'; js, f'-h i°ki U s :n a -sf ?^ / s^ t'^'ivi r^<. n&s ic^! < o/ y i-aii ibout 46 years, R/o r^\ •'•-'•/' iBranim, f.gea r—/^r*t''3!"•;'>?'! Fsi'sfrsr1'?' R '«^Bi/|w?'SlJycS^H . i-/iiSli 2L*L F'IL: 3. Ths Nationai Insurance Company Lirnited, Branch Jagdalpur, Office Main Road, Jaipur, Districi Koraput, Orissa. under Section 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ssent: Shri V. A. Goverdhan, counsel for the appeilant. Shri Qamrui A^iz, counsel for respondent No.3. loKdoav OT £008) Bsing aggrleved by the award dated 05-05-2007 passed by the Additlonal Motor Accidents CSaims Tribuna! (F.T.C.). Kondagaon, District Bastar (henceforth "the Tribunal") in Ciaim Case No.73/2007 whereby in a death case, compensation of Rs.1,S7,OOQ/- was a'n'arded, the appeiiant/ciaimant has preferred this appea! for enhancement of compensatlon. (2) It is not in dispute that on 28.07.2004 Mandu, aged about 40 vears. who was carn/ina a fertilizer baa on his cvcie dled an accidental death on being crushed underneath truck No.C.G.04/2C/ ?345 ov/ned bv resoondent No.2 driven bv resDondent No.1 and insursd bv respondent No.3. Riamati, aged about 10 vears. a minor, is the only survlvlng child of Mandu. Wife of Mandu had sredsceased him. An nDDiication under Section 186 of ths Motor Vehicies Act (henceforth 'the Act') was filed on behaif of Rigmati by hsr .Qi-andparents. The insurer did not orefer anv appea! against the imDuuned av/ard. in the absence of anv ciinchina evidsnce to orove income of the deceased. the Trlbunai assessed the notlonal annual income of the deceased at Rs.15000/-, deducted 1/3" therefrom towards his oersona! exc-enses and appiylna muitiDlier of 16 assessed ioss of dependency at Rs.1,60.000/-. Adding to Shis, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards love and affection, it awarded totai compensation of Rs.1,67,000/-. It was averred bv the ciaimant that the deceased had annual income of Rs.30,000/- from agriculture and 'iyas an expert carpenter and used to esrn atteast Rs.100/- oer dav. An amount of Rs.22,05,000/-was claimed as compensation. (• (3) -i Vaibhav A. Goverdhan. Isarned counsel for the appellant piaced reliance on Premlata & others vs. Rasui Khan , 201 {2*, C.G. i7a SB) and argued that annuai notional incorne of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.36,000/- for assessment of compensation. (4) On the other hand, Shri Qamarul Aziz, learned counsei for respondent No.S/insurer argued that the multipiier of 16 applied by the Tribuna! was already in excess since multipiier of 10 ought to have been adopted by the Tribunai. Reiiance was placed on Andhi Road Trans, represented by its General Manager and another vs. M.Ramadevi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 379. It was further contended that deductlon of 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased by the Tribunai was not proper because Rigmati, fflinor. was the oniv sur/ivina chiid, and therefore. stieast one-half ouaht to have bsen deductsd towards oersonaS sxoenses of the deceased. On this premise, it was urged that no ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is iTiade out.and the appeal Is liable to bs dlsmisssd. (5) The rsspondent No.1 did not appear dsspite sen/ica of notlce. Sen/ice of notice on rssDondei-it No.2 was dispensed with since he did not contest the cSaim in the Tribunai and was proceeded ex parte. (6) Having heard the rival subrnissions, i havs perused the record. Ora! evidence of Ghuduram A.W.1 and Mangluram Sori, A.'iA/.2 was !ed before the Tribuna! by the claimant to prove the .1.- incoms of ths dsc^sss-d frorn ths work of csfpsntsr as slso from agriculture. Ghuduram A.W.1 had admittsd in paragraph 9 that he had no personat knowtedfle about the income of the deceased from aesriculturs. Siinilsriv, Msnc'luram Sori A,W.2 was also unsble to glvs psftlcuisrs of the incoms of th8 dscsssGd from aQncultur®. A perusal of the document Ex.P.9 {Klshtbsndi Khatoni) shows that one Santu S/o Lakhmu and not the deceassd was She rscordsd Bhoomiswaml of the 7.857 hectares of land in Vjllags Vaniuaani. !t thus appears that the ciaimant had tried to misguids the Tribunai by fiiing KSshtbands Khatoni of another person. However, a perusas of ths seizure memo Ex.P-4 shows that near the cvcle of the dsceassd, a bag fuii of fertiiizer had aiso besn seized. 1t shows that at the tlme of the accident. the deceased was carrvins a baa ful! of fertiiizsr. Thsrefors, althouah there is no reliabie evidence to show as to how much agricultura! land was owned bv the deceased vet jt can be safeiy presurned that ths deceased vyas havina some income from cultivation. in Premlata & others vs. Rasul Khan a Division Bench cf thls Court held that where the svidence retating to income of the deceased was discrepant, ths Tribunal ought to have taken the annual notional income of ths deceased at Rs.36,000/- and observed in para 13 & 14 as under:- 13. In view of the above 'dlscreuant evidenc< about the income of the deceased, we do no find any fau!t in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the cialmants' evldence about the Inconis ofthe dscssssd. 14. Nevertheless, ihe income of the deceassd assesssd by tbe Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act requlres re-consideration as the notlonal 1 ' •^s, nnnf •I in thfi mcome ot Ks.l&,uUU/- was prescnoed in < >econd Scheduie in the year 1994 and the accldent in the present case wherein Koma! Singh iosi hss iife took place in the year 2004. If the increase In the D"ces of the essenSiai commoditsss and the cost of iivina durina the Dersod befaveen 19S4 to 2004 Is taken jnto consideration, the notionai Income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 1004. We, therefore, proposs to re-cornpute the compensation taklng the income of the deceassd at Rs.36,000/'- oer annum. ?7) Havina thus considered the fscts and circumstances of the and the evidence led by the ciaimant, ! am of the considered opinion that anr.ual notlonai income of the deceased ousht to have besn assessed bv the Tribunal at Rs.3S,000/-. .''•&"',w cSaimant-Riarnatt, a minor, aasd about 10 vsars, was the oniv chiid of the deceased. Her mother had alreadv aredeceased the father-Mandu Isavino behind no other siblina. Ths soie question that now arises for consideration is what should be th®deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased in such a cass. it has to bs borne in mind that Ku. Rlgmati, s- triba! of Bastar, was aged on!y about 10 years on the date ofthe acciderit. !t te iogical to presume that Mandu wouid have been sp^nding oniy 1/3r° of his income over Rigmati, a mjnor and rest over himseif and other expenses of the househoid and cuitivation. As she was the onlv rninor chlid dependant on Mandu and the fact ihat her rnother had predaceased the father, the Tribunai was justified in deducting '\ 13'° towards persona! expenses of the deceased. Loss of annuai dependency is thus assessed at Rs.24,000/-(36,000-12,000). Rigmati wouid have ieft her paternal home within a period of 10 years on getting married. Thereafter, her dspen-dency on the deceased wouid have ceased. Considerina the fact that the- depsndsncy of Rjgmati on the deceased wouid have ceased wlthin a period of 10 years of the accident, a multipiier higher than 10 ought not to have been applied by the Tribuna! m the facts and peculiar cireumstances of the case. !n this manner, ioss of dependency ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,40,000/-(24,000 x 10). The Tribuna! did not a'.vard any amount towards loss of estate in this case. Considering ths facts and circurfistances of the case and the ratio of Premlata & others vs. Ras'jl Khan and others, (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.6,000/- ought to have been awarded towards loss of estate. On the sarne anaiogy, amount avs/arded by the Tribuna! towards funeral exoenses and loss of love and affection is aiso inadsquate. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded fov/ards funsral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. In this rnanner, cornDensation is assessed as under:- Loss of dependency Funeral expenses Loss of lovs alrecSion Loss of estate Rs.2,40,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs10,000/- Rs.6,000/- >s. 2.61 (9) in the result, the appeal is atiowed. Compensation awarded by the Tribuna! is enhanced to Rs.2,61,000/-. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge