Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 114 (CHH)

Purnimabai v. Onkar Singh

2011-03-24

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2011
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 77/ 2004. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 13,64,000/- claimed by the Appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son, mother, brothers and sister of deceased Jitendra Renge, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,63,880/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 Jitendra Renge died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.05.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.07-ZB-0662; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. As the Respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 70/- per day; and Rs. 1,680/- per month assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 24 days in a month. By deducting Rs. 500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,180/- per month and Rs. 14,160/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 14,160/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,54,880/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 9,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,63,880/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jitendra Renge in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 2,63,880/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri R. Pradhan and Ms. 2,63,880/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jitendra Renge in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 2,63,880/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri R. Pradhan and Ms. Sashi Bareth, 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. 1,680/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 2,63,880/- only. 7. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 2,63,880/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador also supported the award. 9. 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. 10. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,63,880/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Jitendra Renge used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month by working in Mahalaxmi Condenser, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. Neither the proprietor of the said concern nor any other co-worker was examined before the Tribunal to establish the above employment of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,680/- per month in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13. 4,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,680/- per month in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13. Considering that deceased Jitendra Renge, on the date of the accident, was aged about 30 years and was working at District Headquarter, Raipur, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs. 80-90/- per day in the year 2003 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 30,000/- per annum. 14. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. 15. Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and other claimants, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case. 16. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 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/- 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. 3,35,000/-as compensation for the death of deceased Jitendra Renge in the motor accident. 17. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that' with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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. 18. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, 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. 71,120/-at Rs. 8,880/-. 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. 71,120/-at Rs. 8,880/-. 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. 2,63,880/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,35,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 8,880/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 71,120/-. 20. Respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. 71,120/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 8,880/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 80,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No order as to costs.