Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 68 (CHH)

MAHESIA BAI v. ARUN KUMAR GOND

2010-03-04

RAJEEV GUPTA, RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR

body2010
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J.- 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribw1al, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.01.2001 passed in Claim Case No.24/2000. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.9,23,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and father of deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.05.1999, when the tractor-trolley bearing registration Nos.MP-26E/3707 & MP-26E/3706, in which he was travelling as coolie met with an accident and overturned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- as compensation along with interest@ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.05.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley; as the tractor trolley on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs. 1,250/- per month (assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 25 days in a month). By deducting a sum of Rs.450/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/- with the multiplier of 1 0, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,000/-. By awarding further sum under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,38,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri MK Bhaduri and Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,250/per month only; in deducting Rs.450/- per month, which is more than l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.l,3 8,0001- only. 6. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs. 1,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.05.1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley; and the insurer of the tractor-trolley was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality. 8. 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. 9. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as labour, 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. 11. 10. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as labour, 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. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,250/- per month in the year 1999 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12. Considering that deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70/- per day even by working as an un-skilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/per annum. 14. Considering the age of the deceased, his widow their children and father of the deceased, we are of the view that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,08,000/-. The claimant 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.2,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ghanshyam Prasad Vishwakarma 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. 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. 85,000/- at Rs. 9,000/-. 18. 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 entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 85,000/- at Rs. 9,000/-. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part, The compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interst of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.85,000/-. 19. Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs.94,000/- (Rs.85,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 85,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.