Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 138 (CHH)

Bulu Maitra v. Udairam Verma

2009-04-20

N.K.AGARWAL

body2009
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the VIIth Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short `Tribunal') vide award dated 28.02.2008, passed in claim case No. 69/2007. 3. The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of the deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act, 1988') claiming compensation of Rs. 24,50,000/- (Twenty Four Lakh & Fifty Thousands) for his death in the motor accident which was occurred on 26.12.2005 arising out of the collision between Indica Car bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD/3540 and Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 J/0220. The deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, being the occupant of Indica Car, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The claimants in their claim petition pleaded that deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra was aged about 43 years and used to earn Rs. 8000/- per month, by running Pan Bhandar and STD/PCO. 5. The Owner of the Truck pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Indica Car Driver. The respondent No. 3/Insurer of the Truck pleaded that the respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving license which is within the knowledge of respondent No. 4 and therefore, the insurance company was not liable. The respondent No. 4 pleaded that the Car was covered by the policy issued by the respondent No. 5 and therefore, claim is to be dismissed against the respondent No. 4. 6. The respondent No. 5 pleaded that the claimants have claimed the compensation in fact against the Driver/owner/Insurer of the Truck and therefore, the respondent No. 5 is not liable for any compensation. 7. Learned Tribunal framed issues and after a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to wrong parking of the Truck and further held the Driver/Owner and Insurer of the Truck liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal accessed income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.5000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal accessed the claimants dependency at Rs.3333/- per month i.e. Rs.39,996/- per annum by applying multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,99,940/-. The Tribunal accessed income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.5000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal accessed the claimants dependency at Rs.3333/- per month i.e. Rs.39,996/- per annum by applying multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,99,940/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/-towards consortium to widow and Rs.5000/- each to both children as compensation towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,21,940/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra in the said motor accident against the respondent No. 1 to 3. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 6 percent per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.6,21,940/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8. Shri A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of Rs.5000/- per month and the multiplier applied of 15, as according to him, the income ought to have been assessed Rs. 8000/- per month and also the multiplier ought to have been applied of 18 in terms of IInd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 10. Considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties and also considering the age of deceased Hemendra Kumar Maitra, i.e. 43 years at the time of accident, the income assessed at Rs.5000/- per month and the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal, cannot be found fault with, rather it is on higher side, in view of dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana and Others (Reported in 2007 (3) SCC 538) wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be proper for the deceased, which was aged about 33 years. 11. The aforementioned ratio of Supreme Court has also been applied by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Bhanmati Bai Sahu & Others v. Sudhakar Kumar & Others. 11. The aforementioned ratio of Supreme Court has also been applied by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Bhanmati Bai Sahu & Others v. Sudhakar Kumar & Others. (Reported in 2009 (1) CGLJ 317). 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income or on account of the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. 13. The appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore has no merit the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed summarily.