Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 65 (CHH)

MEERA DEVI v. SUKHBINDER SINGH

2009-02-25

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 27.10.2004, passed in Claim Case No.53/2004. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Shyambihari filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby a sum of Rs. 13,45,000/- was claimed as compensation for the death of deceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2002, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MP 23D/6591, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Shyambihari was a Skilled Labour and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working in a Steel Rolling Mill. 3. The owner-cum-driver did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The Insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. . 4. The claimants examined A W -1 Meera Devi, A W -2 Brijbihari Singh and A W -3 Ravindra Singh in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the deceased Shyambihari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; and 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. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,0001- per month and Rs.24,0001- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd ofRs.24,0001- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,0001- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency ofRs.16,0001with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,0001-. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,0001- per month and Rs.24,0001- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd ofRs.24,0001- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,0001- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency ofRs.16,0001with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,0001-. By awarding further sum ofRs.15,0001- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.2,71 ,0001- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2002. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2, 71,0001@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri A.L. Singraul, 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 assessing his income at Rs. 2,0001- per month and Rs.24,0001- per annum; in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.2, 71,0001- only. 8. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - The Oriental Instance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,71,0001- 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 Shyambihari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.05.2002; the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was responsible for the accident; 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 award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record for establisl,1ing the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 10. The compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals in a motor claim case should be just and proper compensation. It should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 11. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,71,0001- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals in a motor claim case should be just and proper compensation. It should neither be a meager amount nor a bonanza. 11. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,71,0001- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shyambihari used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Skilled Labour in a Rolling Mill, but the evidence of A W2 Brijbihari Singh and A W - 3 Ravindra Singh is 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. 13. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side. The Tribunal while discarding the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and deceased Shyambihari lost his life in the motor accident which took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 (the year of accident in the present case) is taken into consideration, the notional income ofRs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15. What would be the appropriate deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased would depend on the facts and circumstances of each care. No hard and fast criteria can be laid down in that behalf. Considering the income of the deceased, his age, the number of the dependents on the income of the deceased and their age, we are of the opinion that the deduction ofusua11/3rd of that income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be appropriate in the present case. No hard and fast criteria can be laid down in that behalf. Considering the income of the deceased, his age, the number of the dependents on the income of the deceased and their age, we are of the opinion that the deduction ofusua11/3rd of that income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be appropriate in the present case. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/per annum. 16. The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children cannot be found fault with. By multiplying the annual dependency ofRs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs. 3,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum ofRs.3,35,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Shyambihari in the motor accident on 14.05.2002. 17. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view of 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 interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 18. 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 ofRs.64,000/- at Rs.16,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,71 ,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,35,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.16,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.64,000/-. 20. Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.64,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.] 6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed.