Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 143 (CHH)

MANHARAN LAL KAUSHIK v. SUBHASH GIRI

2012-05-10

RAJEEV GUPTA, RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR

body2012
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J.:- 1. The unfortunate parents of deceased Narad Kaushik are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 119/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.22,63,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Narad Kaushik, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 10.01.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- 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 the claimants' son Narad Kaushik died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.01.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04/ZC-0216; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,76,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/-, as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Narad Kaushik in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- @ 6% 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.2,11,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only though the claimants established that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- only. 6. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 7. 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. 8. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the claimants' dependency would not be more than Rs. 18,000/- per annum as 50% of Rs.36,000/- is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs. Mohammed Jameel and another (2009) 2 SCC 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121; as the claimants are parents of the deceased the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121; as the claimants are parents of the deceased the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iyer and another (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation would work out to Rs. 1,80,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants would become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Narad Kaushik, which is less than the sum of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.