Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 25 (CHH)

DHANESHWARJ YADAV. v. RAJENDRA SINGH CHA. BRA

2009-01-21

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 09-08-2004, passed in Claim Case No.11/2004. 2. The claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Hanshlal Yadav claimed compensation of Rs.44,15,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 01-03-2004, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. CG 15A 2155, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Hanshlal Yadav, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. The claimant further pleaded that her husband Hanshlal Yadav used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from Agriculture and by selling Milk. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Bus contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the plea that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer of the Bus took the further plea that the driver of the Bus was not holding a valid driving licence and the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimant examined A WI Dhaneshwari Yadav & A W2 Ramavatar Yadav in support of her claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus examined NAW 1 Ajay Pal Gupta in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Hanshlal Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-03-2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus; as the offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal assessed the claimant's dependency at Rs.1,330/- per month. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,39,400/-. The Tribunal awarded further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony; and Rs.500/- towards damage to the cycle. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,39,400/-. The Tribunal awarded further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony; and Rs.500/- towards damage to the cycle. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Hanshlal Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- @ 9% per annum &om the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Sushi Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,63,000/only. 8.. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- 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 Claimant's husband Hanshlal Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-03-2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of die driver of the offending vehicle Bus; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimant, 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 above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10. True, the claimant pleaded that her husband deceased Hanshlal Yadav used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from Agriculture and by selling Milk but the evidence led 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 claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month is on the lower side. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month is on the lower side. Considering the occupation of the deceased and the fact that the deceased died in the accident which took place in the year 2004, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12. As there were only two members in the family i.e. deceased Hanshlal Yadav and his wife claimant Dhaneshwari Yadav, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses from Rs. 36,000/-, the claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000/-. 13. Considering that deceased Hanshlal Yadav was found to be aged about 28 years, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate in the facts of 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. 14. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 1 8,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to 2,70,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.500/- for damage to the cycle, The claimant, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,85,500/-. 15. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for, which the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for, which the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation 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 payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.22,500/- at Rs.2,500/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is allowed in part. The compensation ofRs.2,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,85,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.22,500/-. 18. Respondent No.3/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time for depositing the total sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rs.22,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,500/- 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.