Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 115 (CHH)

Kiran v. Mansoor Ansari

2011-03-25

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. The impugned award dated 13.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 11/2002 has given rise to filing of these two appeals for enhancement of the compensation. M.A. No. 417/2005 has been filed by Smt. Kiran and Girish Talreja, widow and son of deceased Sunil Kumar, whereas M.A. No. 946/2005 is at the behest of Bhagwan Das and Smt. Ambri Devi, father and mother of deceased Sunil Kumar. The parents in their appeal are seeking only enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas the widow and minor son of the deceased are seeking enhancement of the compensation as well as modification of the apportionment of the compensation by the Tribunal between the claimants. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Sunil Kumar, by filing a joint claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.12.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sunil Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.12.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.B.T.-8999; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New 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. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- -with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out Ors. 3,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- -with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out Ors. 3,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 40,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sunil Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri Raja Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellants in M.A. No. 417/2005, who are widow and minor son of deceased Sunil Kumar 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. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; in awarding low compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- only; and in directing equal share from the above compensation to the parents also. 7. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Learned Counsel for the Appellants in M.A. No. 946/2005 filed by the parents of the deceased also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- only. 8. Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri G.V.K. Rao, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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. 4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- 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 Sunil Kumar used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month as LIC and Small Savings Agent, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 12. 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. 13. The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 14. Considering that deceased Sunil Kumar, on the date of the accident, was aged about 27 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. wherein multiplier of 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out Ors. 4,08,000/-. The claimants are further awarded 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. 4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sunil Kumar in the motor accident. 16. The claimants are further awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 23,000/-. 17. Considering the age of the widow and minor child of the deceased and his parents, we direct that the entire enhanced amount of Rs. 23,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs. 2,000/- shall be payable to Smt. Kiran, widow of deceased Sunil Kumar only and the other claimants shall not be entitled to get any share from this amount. 18. 23,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs. 2,000/- shall be payable to Smt. Kiran, widow of deceased Sunil Kumar only and the other claimants shall not be entitled to get any share from this amount. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the Appellants/ claimants (MA No. 417/2005 and M.A. No. 946/2005) are allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 23,000/-. 19. Respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 23,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 23,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20. The entire enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 23,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs. 2,000/-, to be deposited by the insurer of the Truck now in compliance of this order, shall be payable to Smt. Kiran, Appellant No. 1 in M.A. No. 417/2005, who is widow of deceased Sunil Kumar only and the other claimants in the two appeals shall not be entitled to get any share from this amount. 21. No order as to costs.