Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 139 (CHH)

SHARDA DEVI NAIDU v. SUKHVINDER KAUR GHAI

2004-07-15

A.S.V.MOORTHY, L.C.BHADOO

body2004
ORDER. 1. Heard both the counsel. 2. The claimants in Claim Case No. 60/1997 on the file of the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award passed by the said tribunal On 31-1-1997 at about 4.15 p.m. when the deceased riding his bicycle in Raipur-Bilaspur road, a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came from behind and dashed against the cycle, with the result the deceased was thrown out and he died on the spot. The accident took place at a place called Bhanpuri. Actually, this accident was witnessed by one Krishna Sahu, PW -2. The wife and children (three daughters and two sons) filed a claim case claiming a compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/-. The tribunal after considering the evidence let in by both the parties came to the conclusion that just and proper compensation can be fixed at Rs. 96,000/- only. The present appeal has been filed before this Court to fix the compensation amount at Rs. 3,62,000/- as against the amount fixed by the tribunal namely Rs. 96,000/-. 3. In as much as the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross appeal, the only question to be decided by this Court is as to what is the just and reasonable compensation. Both in the claim petition as well as in the evidence it has been claimed that at the relevant time the deceased was 50 years old. In fact, it is the first appellant namely Smt. Sharda Devi, the wife of the deceased who has categorically deposed before the Court in her chief examination about the age of the victim. We find that there has been no cross examination on this aspect by the respondents. Hence, we have to hold that at the relevant time the deceased was aged 50 years. The fact that the post mortem certificate mentions the age of the deceased as 55 years can be of no significance. 4. As far as the earning of the victim is concerned, it is claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was running a scooter repair shop and earning somewhere between Rs. 200/- to 250/- per day. Widow of the victim has also deposed to the same effect before the Court. 4. As far as the earning of the victim is concerned, it is claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was running a scooter repair shop and earning somewhere between Rs. 200/- to 250/- per day. Widow of the victim has also deposed to the same effect before the Court. In fact in the cross examination a question was put to her by the respondents to the effect that the deceased was earning only between Rs. 100/- and 150/- per day and that had been denied. Even assuming that what was suggested to her is true then on an average it can be taken that the deceased was earning about Rs. 125/per day. Even if the deceased worked for 26 days in a month, then he would have earned Rs. 3,250/- per month. In fact in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, a specific ground has been taken to the effect that at the relevant time the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the dependency should be estimated at Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per year. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court can have no hesitation to accept this claim made by the claimants., Thus, we hold that the deceased prior to his death was contributing to the claimants a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. The next question to be considered by this Court is what is the multiplier to be adopted. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was 50 years old at the relevant time and he left behind him his wife aged 47 years, three daughters aged 24, 18 and 15 years respectively and two sons aged 20 and 19 years respectively, we are of the view that multiplier of 13 can be adopted and in that event we arrive at a total figure of Rs. 3,12,000/-. With this we have to add Rs. 25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, we arrive at a total figure of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 7. We find that the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 96,000/- to the claimants. We enhance the compensation by Rs. 2,54,000/-. In other words, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- over and above what has been fixed by the tribunal. The additional sum of Rs. Thus, we arrive at a total figure of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 7. We find that the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 96,000/- to the claimants. We enhance the compensation by Rs. 2,54,000/-. In other words, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- over and above what has been fixed by the tribunal. The additional sum of Rs. 2,54,000/ shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim petition. Appeal Allowed.