Chattisgarh High Court
Smt Sunita Devi vs Kameshwar Singh on 4 March, 2011
Author: Rajeev Gupta
Bench: Rajeev Gupta
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Misc Appeal C No 252 of 2006
1 Smt Sunita Devi
2 Manit Kumar
3 Ramnath
4 Pramod
5 Dharam Ram
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 Kameshwar Singh
2 Vinay Singh Khairwar
3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd Branch through Branch Manager
...Respondents
! Shri AK Prasad counsel for the appellants
^ Shri GS Patel counsel for respondents No 1 and 2 Shri Raj Awasthi counsel for respondent No 3
CORAM: HONBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ & HONBLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J
Dated: 04/03/2011
: Judgement
ORDER
(04th March, 2011) MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, district Surguja (for short, `the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.06.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2005.
2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Prem Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,35,900/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
3) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,400/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,35,900/- only.
4) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,35,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5) Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Tractor contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the owner of the Tractor liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
6) 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.
7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,35,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Prem Ram used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as Mason, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In fact, claimant No.1 Smt. Sunita Devi, appearing as AW1 before the Tribunal admitted in her cross-examination that in their village Masons were getting Rs.80/-; Rs.100/-; and Rs.150/- per day. The Tribunal on the basis of her above evidence assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month.
9) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month as the deceased admittedly was working in a small village in the district of Sarguja.
10) 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.
11) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Prem Ram was shown to be 35 years of age in his postmortem report and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years.
12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
13) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
14) No order as to costs.
J U D G E