Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 277 (CHH)

DURPAT @ DULESH SAHU v. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU

2009-10-27

RAJEEV GUPTA, T.P.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.07.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 19/2008. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.15,82,300/- claimed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Naresh Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hencetorth, "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 31.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/ -as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vasim Miya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in selecting lower multiplier of 12 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- only. 4. Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The Bajaj Allaynj General Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/ - awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Shri J.A Lohani, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 6. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Naresh Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Indica Car; as the offending vehicle on the date of the accident was insured with Bajaj Allaynj General Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants, now have attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals 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. 8. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals 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. 8. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Naresh Sahu used to earn Rs.200/- per day by running a general store, but the evidence led 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 and in assessing his income at Rs.3.000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum on its own estimate. 10. The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal, considering that the deceased was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident and his widow was shown to be 26 years of the age in the claim petition, is certainly on the lower side. Considering all the relevant factors, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the case. 12. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Naresh Sahu in the motor accident. 13. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 14. 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 entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,07,000/- at Rs. 8,000/-. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 16. Respondent No.3 Bajaj Allaynj General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,15,000/-(Rs.1,07,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,0001- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.