Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 93 (CHH)

NARBADA BAI v. ASHWINI KUMAR

2009-03-16

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 Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhamtari (henceforth, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 15.07.2002 passed in claim case No.26/2002. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Balram Satnami claimed compensation of Rs. 16,22,500/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for his death, in the motor accident on 08.05.2000 when his scooter bearing registration No. MP 24 G - 8711 was dashed by the offending vehicle tractor bearing registration No. MP 23 D 9001 resulting in multiple serious injuries to Balram Satnami resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased - Balram Satnami used to earn Rs.4 to 5 thousand per month as a Labourer. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle - tractor contested the claim and denied their liability to pay the compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer of the tractor took further plea that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid driving license and the tractor was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The claimants examined AW/l - Narmada Bai, in support of their claim, whereas the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle tractor did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased - Balram Satnami died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.05.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle - tractor; as the offending vehicle-tractor on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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.1 ,300/- per month. By deducting a sum ofRs.500/- per month towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8001- per month and Rs.9 ,6001- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 9 ,6001with the multiplier of I 0, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,0001-. By deducting a sum ofRs.500/- per month towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8001- per month and Rs.9 ,6001- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 9 ,6001with the multiplier of I 0, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,0001-. By awarding further sum ofRs.1 0,0001- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.l ,06,0001- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased - Balram Satnami in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,06,0001@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Santosh Bharat, 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 1,3001- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of I 0; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.l ,06,0001only. 8. Shri Dasarath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.l ,06,0001- 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 Balram Satnami died on accident of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.05.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor; and the insurer of the of the or Tending vehicle tractor was liable to pay compensation to the claimants 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, affim1 the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. 10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts 1 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. 11. We, therefore, affim1 the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. 10. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts 1 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. 11. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.l ,06,0001awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Balram Satnami used to eam Rs A to 5 thousand per month, but the evidence of AW l Narmada Bai, the only witness exan1ined by the claimants before the Tribunal, is to the effect that a labour in the village used to get Rs.50-60 per day. The income of the deceased, therefore, can be safely assessed at Rs.21 ,0001- per annum. 13. By deducting 1/3rd ofRs.21 ,0001- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.14,0001- per annum. 14. Considering that deceased Bairam Satnami was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident and his widow Narmada Bai was aged about 32 years on the date of the filing of the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kalpana (Smt.) and others•. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency ofRs.14,0001- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.l ,82,0001-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,0001- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,0001- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000 for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.l ,97,0001- as compensation for the death of deceased Balram Satnami in the motor accident. 16. 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. 17. 16. 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. 17. 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. 91,0001- at Rs.19,0001-. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.l ,06,0001- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.l ,97,0001- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.l9,0001- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.91,0001-. 19. Respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum ofRs.l,1 0,0001- (Rs.91,0001towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.19,0001- towards quantified amount ofinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 91,0001-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20. No order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed. ("'){\/Y7\ "! err ,,"!!~