IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l M.A. fCI N0. cf?^_Z2008 APPELLANTS Sharda Prasad Mishra, S/o. Shiv Prasad Mishra, aged about 42 years, R/o. Main Road Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspuc (C.G.) (OWNER) VERSUS RESPO^NDENTS ^'^> ^-^- 4^"' .....,-^%<g l^--""L.-<r^ \ :l^Anendra Prasad, S/o. Late Anandi Lal Jaiswal, aged about 48 years, Caste-Jaiswal, R/o. Village Tenganmada, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. (CLAIMANT) Bholaram Sahu, S/o. Piha Lal Sahu, aged about 27 years, Caste-Sahu, R/o. Firangipara, Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (DRIVER) 3^ Sunil Kumar Shukla, S/o. Shri ^ Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Caste- Brahman, aged about 35 years, R/o. Kududand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) AWARDAMOUNT : VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs.1,99,500/- Rs.1,99,500/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR MA(C)No. 935/2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Sharda Prasad Mishra Versus Anendra Pi-asad SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- -»•. x .^\ -• Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate, for the appeUant. Shri Sanjay S. Patel, Advocate, for the respondent ^0. 1 Ku. Morisa Chatri,AdvoGate, for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (29-10-2010) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/owner against the award dated 7-3-2008 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 110/2007. In this case, the claim.ant has also filed cross- objection for enhancement ofthe amount ofaward. Facts of the case in brief are that on 18-2-2006 at about 3.00 p.m. Naresh Jaiswal (since deceased) was going to Bilaspur on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10/E-7759. When he reached near Amne tum, the respondent No. 2 driving the Jeep bearing registration No. CG-04/ZB- 6840 in a rash and negligent ruanner dashed the motorcycle of Naresh Jaiswal, as a result of which he died on spot due t6 the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant being his brother fUed a elaim petition underSection 166 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 18,80,OOO/- as compensation for the death offhe deceased in the motor accident. •h. ^tlt »»n ^1"% ^ ^e!y ^y 7, 8, Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led andmaterial placed, awarded Rs. 1,99,500/- as compensation to the claiinant against the driver and the owner. The only contention raised by Shri Khetrapal is fhat the claimant in the instant ease is the elder brofher of the deceased. Indisputably the claimant is working in e.ducation department as peon and was not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, learned Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding Rs. 1,99,500/- as compensation. He prayed that the amount of award requires to be reduced suitably. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of HonT3le Supreme Coiirt in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera -v- Oriental Insuranee Co. Ltd. reported in 2007AIRSCW 1962. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent/claimant submit that leamed Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount which deserves to be upheld. I have perused the award impugned and record ofthe Tribunal. As per para 7 of the statement of A.W. 1 Anendra Prashad i.e. the elaimant, the claiinant is working in education department as peon at Tenganmada. On going through whole statement, no where it has been said fhat the claimant was in any way dependent on the deceased. Thus indisputably the deceased was not bread earner of the claimant. However,' the claimant is certainly a legal representative of the deceased and entitled to file a elaim petition under Sectibn 166(1) ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988. \~. \. vss., 9 'SS.-S-:. C <;,1 -'.^ .i? i/ ^f '"^^'^' ^ -^^s^ < 10. 11 t \ So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in case of Smt. Manjuri Bera (supra) that even if there is no loss of dependency, fhe elaiinant if he or she is a legal r-epresentative, will be entitled to coinpensation, the quantum ofwhich shall be not less than the Uability flowing from. Section 140 of the Act. It was further held in para 21 of the above judgment: °In my opinion, "no fault Liability", envisaged in Section 140 of fhe said Act is distinguishable from the rule of''Strict Liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [Seetion 140(2)]. It is astatutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/ crystallized araount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. ' The statutory com.pensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative^ namely, his daughter has inherited hisestate. She was entitled to inherit hisestate.In the circumstances, she was entiUed to receive compensation under "No Fault Liability" in termsofSection 140 of the said Act. My'opinion is confined only to fhe "No Fault Liability" under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." In view of the above law laid down by fhe HonTsle Apex Court in the above referred judgment, since fhe claimant was not dependent on the deceased, in the considered opihion of this Court, amount of compensation awarded by leamed Tribunal is shockingly on higher .side which deserves to be suitably modiGed. Taking into consideration the overaU circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the " claimant is entiUed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of loss of estate. Further \s.. "^^. ?' f the clairnant is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus the claimant is entitled for Rs. 70.000/- as compensation. 12. In view of above, the award is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled for Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs. 1,99,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal, along with iriterest at the rate of6% per annum from the date of application till its recovery. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 14. Appeal is partly allowed. 15. Consequentiy, the cross-objection filed by the claimant stands dismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwa! Judge fc ^ ••>> \'.. 1"S II