Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 63 (CHH)

RUKMANI BAI v. RAM VISHAL SHARMA

2008-03-24

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER : Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—The impugned award dated 15-2-2003 passed by the Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 128/2002 has given rise to the filing of these two Miscellaneous Appeals, i.e., M.A. No. 372/2003 and M.A. No. 391/2003. The claimants have filed MA No. 372/2003 for enhancement of the compensation, whereas M.A. No. 391/2003 is at the behest of the insurer of the offending vehicle against the award. 2. The claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased - Kaushal Prasad Choudhary, claimed compensation of Rs. 50,75,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for his death in the motor accident, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle-truck bearing Registration No. M.P. 26-D/1762, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Kaushal Prasad Choudhary who succumbed to those injuries on his way to the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that their son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary used to earn about Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture; by selling milk; and by plying his jeep as taxi. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle-truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle-truck pleaded that the driver of the truck was not responsible for the accident, whereas the insurer took the plea that the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined Nand Ram (A.W. 1), Mohanlal Nayak (A.W. 2) and Manoj Agrawal (A.W. 3) in support of their claim, whereas the driver, owner and insurer of the truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claimant's son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17-3-1999; 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 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting l/3rd of the Rs. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting l/3rd of the Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 4,32,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,39,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 4,39,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri N.K. Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellants in M.A. No 372/2003 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 4,39,500/-. 7. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company in M.A. No. 391/2003, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the higher multiplier of 18 as the claimants were parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , the multiplier could not have exceeded 10. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that claimants' son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17-3-1999; and the driver of the offending vehicle-truck was responsible for the accident are based on the evidence of Nand Ram (A.W. 1), Mohanlal Nayak (A.W. 2) and Manoj Agrawal (A.W. 3). On a close scrutiny of their evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the above findings on their evidence. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. On a close scrutiny of their evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the above findings on their evidence. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 10. Now, we shall examine as to what would be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 11. Deceased-Kaushal Prasad Choudhary was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident. Though the claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from agriculture; by selling milk; and by plying his commander jeep as taxi, there is no definite material about the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum as claimed by the claimants. 12. The Apex Court in some what similar circumstances in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, , while assessing the income of the deceased and the claimants' dependency observed in Para 13 as under: 13. Considering the age of the deceased it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 13. The MACT itself found that the income was not established. At some point of time it was stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the absence of any definite material about the income, monthly contribution to the family, after deduction for personal expenses is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e., annually Rs. 36,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs. 4,68,000/-. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim till the date of actual payment. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 4-4-2005. Balance shall be deposited alongwith interest within two months from today. Out of the total amount, 80 per cent shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank initially for a period of five years. But no withdrawal shall be permitted before the expiry of period. However, monthly interest shall be paid to the claimants. 13. Balance shall be deposited alongwith interest within two months from today. Out of the total amount, 80 per cent shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank initially for a period of five years. But no withdrawal shall be permitted before the expiry of period. However, monthly interest shall be paid to the claimants. 13. Considering the material available on record about the income of the deceased in the context of above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana and Ors. (supra), we deem it proper to assess the claimants' dependency, after deducting a reasonable amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 14. The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the higher side, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and Anr. (supra), wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are the parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. In our opinion, the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 36,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,60,000/-. By adding a sum of Rs. 7,500/-, awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 3,67,500/- as compensation for the death of their son Kaushal Prasad Choudhary in the motor accident. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation of Rs. 4,39,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 3,67,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. 16. From the records it appears that the entire amount of compensation with interest due thereon was deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal in compliance of the order dated 18-6-2004, passed in M.A. No. 391/2003. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,67,500/- with interest due thereon to the claimants after adjusting the amount already withdrawn by the claimants in compliance of the order dated 18-6-2004. The balance amount, if any, after the above disbursal be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. 17. The Registry is directed to transmit the sum of Rs. 3,67,500/- with interest due thereon to the claimants after adjusting the amount already withdrawn by the claimants in compliance of the order dated 18-6-2004. The balance amount, if any, after the above disbursal be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. 17. The Registry is directed to transmit the sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company as mandatory deposit in M.A. No, 391/2003 to the concerning Claims Tribunal immediately. 18. Consequently, M.A. No. 372/2003, filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal fails and is hereby dismissed whereas M.A. No. 391/2003, filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle is allowed in part. No order as to costs.