Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 239 (CHH)

SHIVLAL SAHU v. CHANDRASHEKHAR

2008-09-04

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14-12-1999, passed in Claim Case No. 71/98. 2. The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Piteshwar claimed compensation ofRs.20,25,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for Shell 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident when on 14-06-1998, the Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.-23/T-845, in which he was travelling was dashed by the Bus bearing registration No. MP23-J/296, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that their son Piteshwar used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- per annum by cultivating agricultural land to the extent of 12 acres. 3. The owner and driver of the Bus did not contest the claim and remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the Bus and the owner and insurer of the Jeep contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurers of the Bus and Jeep took the plea that the drivers of these vehicles were not holding valid driving licence and these vehicles were being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined A WI Shivlal Sahu in support of their claim, whereas the owners and insurers of the Bus and Jeep did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Piteshwar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14-06-1998; the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Bus and Jeep were equally responsible for the accident; as the Bus and Jeep on the date of the accident were insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respectively, the Insurance Companies were liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the extent of50% each. 6. The Tribunal considering all the aspects of the matter, awarded a lumpsum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation including Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.l 0,000/- for physical pain and mental agony. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Vishnu Koshta and Shri N.P. Koshta learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the accepted formula of first assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency and then multiplying the same with the appropriate multiplier. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low considering the fact that the appellants' son deceased Piteshwar would have extended support to the claimants in their old age. 8. Shri B.D. Guru, Shri Rajendra Tripathi and Shri Ali Asgar learned counsel for the insurers of the Bus and Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants' son Piteshwar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14-061998; the drivers of the Bus and Jeep equally contributed to the accident; and the insurers of the Bus and Jeep were liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% each, have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in I this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has fallen into error in not assessing the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the prescribed method of first assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency and then multiplying the same with the appropriate multiplier; and in awarding a lumpsum of Rs.65,000/- on its own estimate. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation by first assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency and thereafter multiplying the same with the appropriate multiplier. 11. Deceased Piteshwar was aged about 18 years and student of 10th standard on the date of the accident. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation by first assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency and thereafter multiplying the same with the appropriate multiplier. 11. Deceased Piteshwar was aged about 18 years and student of 10th standard on the date of the accident. Even assuming that deceased Piteshwar was not an earning member on the date of the accident, his income can safely be assessed on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act. 12. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. The unfortunate accident wherein deceased Piteshwar 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 ofRs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994, in our opinion, can be safely taken at Rs.20,000/- per annum in the year 1998. We, therefore, assess the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 13. As deceased Piteshwar was unmarried on the date of the accident and would have been married in due course, his contribution towards his parents after his marriage would have been substantially reduced. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to deduct 50% ofRs.20,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.l 0,000/- per annum. 14. As the claimants were parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, wherein it was held that in those cases, where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10, would be 10 in the present case. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Piteshwar in the motor accident. 16. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Piteshwar in the motor accident. 16. Taking all the relevant factors into account including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Companies alone are 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 ofRs.45,000/- at Rs. 15,000/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.l,10,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 1 5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 18. Respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited and respondent No.5 Oriental Insurance Company Limited are granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- + Rs.15,0001- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, divided by two in accordance with their liability determined by the Tribunal) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.