Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 442 (CHH)

GIRWAR RAM DEWANGAN v. SITARAM YADAV

2006-09-26

DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2006
ORDER 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated 28.1.1994 passed in Claim Case No. 76/91 by second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) For enhancement of the award amount as only a sum of Rs. 36,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum form the date of application i.e. 26.10.1990 till realization of the amount, has been awarded to him for the death of his son Santosh Kumar, aged about 19 years. 2. The accident took place on 17.10.1990 at about 12.00 noon when deceased Santosh Kumar was going on a bicycle as a pillion rider and a truck belonging to respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1, collided with the cycle resulting in his death. The factum of accident and negligent driving by respondent no. 1 has been proved by witness Sitaram. 3. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of statement A.W.-2 Kishore Kuamr as Rs. 5 to 10 per day and thus, considering the monthly dependency of Rs.150/- and annual dependency of Rs. 1800/-, applying the multiple of 20, awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the appellant as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dependency taken by the learned Tribunal, on its face, is inadequate and for the purpose of calculating dependency and the multiplier, the guidance as per Second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act can be taken. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that form perusal of statement of the appellant as also the averments made in the claim petition, it is clear that the appellant has himself given the dependency at the rate of Rs. 5 per day. He further submits that Section 163-A of the Act came into force on 14.11.1994 and the same is prospective in nature. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. 5 per day. He further submits that Section 163-A of the Act came into force on 14.11.1994 and the same is prospective in nature. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is true that the appellant climate in his petition has assessed the dependency on the lower side, however, the moter Vehicle Act, 1988 is a social welfare legislation under which compensation is provided by way of award to the persons who sustain bodily injury or get killed in a vehicular accident and therefore, technicalities in pleadings cannot be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the Act. 8. Admittedly, in this case the deceased was 19 years old promising student and therefore, for the purpose of assessing dependency of his poor father who was deprived of his young son, the realities of life has to be kept in mind and the same has to be done pragmatically. For assessing the dependency it would be appropriate to look at Second Schedule for guidance and after reasonably making allowances as the accident occurred some four years prior to insertion of Second Schedule in the Act, the dependency can be assessed and multiplier can be applied. 9. Undisputedly, the dependency taken by the Tribunal is too low. Considering the fact that the deceased was studying in Class-X and as per the statement of Girwar, father of the deceased, he was proficient in his studies, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award has been passed on the basis of inadequate and improper annual dependency. 10. In the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act which was inserted w.e.f. 14.11.1994, the compensation is to be assessed by taking the national annual income as Rs. 15000/- for non-earning persons. However, as the accident occurred prior to insertion of Second Schedule, if the national annual income is assessed at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per annum and after providing for deduction of 1/3rd as per Schedule towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual contribution to the family would be around Rs. 8,000/- and considering the age of the deceased i.e. 19 years and the age of the claimant/appellant to be 40 years, if the multiplier is taken to be 16, then the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,28,000/- and if the funeral expenses of Rs. 8,000/- and considering the age of the deceased i.e. 19 years and the age of the claimant/appellant to be 40 years, if the multiplier is taken to be 16, then the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,28,000/- and if the funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- are added, the total amount would come to Rs. 1,30,000/- and on this sum the appellant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filling of the application till realization of the amount. 11. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal dated 28. 1.1994 is modified to the extent that instead of awarded sum of Rs. 36,000/- the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,30,000/- as Compensation. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum form the date of application i.e. 26.10.1990 till payment is made. The respondent No. 3/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount less the amount already deposited by It within a period of two months form the date of supply of certified copy of this order. On such deposit, the amount will be disbursed in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamme Thomas and others and Lilaben Udeshingh Gohel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appeal Partly Allowed.