Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 355 (CHH)

RAMABAI v. BISAHU RAM CHAUHAN

2008-12-08

RAJEEV GUPTA, T.P.SHARMA

body2008
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 02.05.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 77/2002. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Rajendra Dewangan claimed compensation of Rs. 14,75,000/- by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 24.03.2000, when the truck bearing registration No.MP26 B 3435 in which he was working as a porter met with an accident and over turned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in the instantaneous death of Rajendra Dewangan at the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Rajendra. Dewangan was aged about 35 years and used to earn RsA,500/- per month as porter and weaver. 3. The owner, driver, and insurer of the truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took the further plea that offending vehicle truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence. 4. The claimants examined AW -1 Ramabai and AW -2 Shiv Kumar Shrivas and AW - 3 Premlal Dewangan in support of their claim whereas the owner of the truck examined N A W -1 Bhupendra Singh, in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Rajendra Dewangan 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 the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 1,000/- towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.667/- per month. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,36,668/- which was rounded of to Rs. 1,36,0001-. By awarding further sum of Rs.24,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.667/- per month. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,36,668/- which was rounded of to Rs. 1,36,0001-. By awarding further sum of Rs.24,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,60,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajendra Dewangan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri PK. Tulsyan, 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 ,60,500/- only. 8. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, The National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,60,500/- 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 deceased Rajendra Dewangan 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 the truck and the insurer of the truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rajendra Dewangan used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as porter on the truck and as weaver, but the evidence lea by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,000/- per month is certainly on the lower side. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,000/- per month is certainly on the lower side. The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased, ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section] 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The notional income of Rs. 15.000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between 1994, and the year 2000, the year of accident in the present case, is taken into account the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs 30,000/- per annwn. 12. By deducting usual 1/3rd of Rs 30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 13. Considering that deceased Rajendra Dewangan was 35 years of age on the date of the accident whereas his widow Smt. Ramabai was 32 years of age at the time of filing of the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and others, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate by the Apex Court, where the age of the deceased was 33 years. 14. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 20,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to gel Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajendra Dewangan in the motor accident. 15. The claimants are further entitled to gel Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs 5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajendra Dewangan in the motor accident. 15. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that to avoid any possible dispute about the period for which the claimants are entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16. 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 the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,14,500/- at Rs.35,500/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2, 75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.35,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation. 18. Respondent NO.3/National Insurance Company Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. 1,14,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.35,500/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.