Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 165 (CHH)

SEETA DEVI v. JAYANT RAI

2008-07-01

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.SINHA

body2008
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal ') vide award dated 29-04-2002, passed in Claim Case No. 181/98. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter, mother, brother and sister of deceased - Chandradev Singh claimed compensation of Rs.4 7 ,85,0001by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident when on 21-05-98 the Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP 24 GC /0716 in which he was travelling dashed against a tree due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Chandradev Singh, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 22-05-98. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Chandradev Singh was earning Rs.5,OOOI- per month by working as Supervisor in Kedia Company. 3. The owner, driver and the insurer of Marilti Van contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner and driver pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. They further pleaded that the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, if any, would be that of the Insurance Company as the Maruti Van on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The insurer, on the other hand, denied the fact of the accident and pleaded that the driver of the Maruti Van was not holding a valid driving licence and Maruti Van was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined AWII - Smt. Seeta Devi, AW/2 - Dalvir Singh @ Bora Singh and A W 13 - Sapan in support oftheir claim, whereas the owner, driver and insurer ofMaruti Van did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased-Chandradev singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Van; as Maruti Van was insured on the date of the accident with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The Tribunal found that the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not reliable. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section l63-A of the Act at Rs. I 5,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3,d of Rs.l5,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.l0,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.l 0,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,60,000/-. By awarding Rs.2,000/- towards the funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,69,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased - Chandradev Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation ofRs. 1,69,500/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,69,500/- only. 8. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs. 1,69,500/- to the claimants. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased - Chandradev Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Van; and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That appeal, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to prove the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We. therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased - Chandradev Singh was appointed as Supervisor in Kedia Company ten days before the accident at the salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We. therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased - Chandradev Singh was appointed as Supervisor in Kedia Company ten days before the accident at the salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum requires reconsideration. 11. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act in the year 1994. The accident in which deceased - Chandradev Singh lost his life took place in the year 1998. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the years 1994 and 1998 is taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would come to Rs.21,000/- in the year 1998. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.21 ,000/- per annum. 12. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs 21 ,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at RS.14,0001- per annum. 13. Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 14. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.14,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,10,000/-. By adding the sum of Rs.9,500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the funeral expenses; loss of consortium to the widow, and loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2, 19,500/-. 15. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in disposal of the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- at Rs.l5,000/-. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. 50,000/- at Rs.l5,000/-. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.l,69,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,19,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.50,000/-. 17. Respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted two months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- towards enhanced amount of the compensation + Rs.l5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. , 18. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.