Chattisgarh High Court
Smt Sandhya Chauhan vs Shri Ram on 1 December, 2010
Author: Rajeev Gupta
Bench: Rajeev Gupta
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Misc Appeal No 128 of 2005
1 Smt Sandhya Chauhan
2 Dipak Chauhan
3 Damini Chauhan
4 Holi Ram Chauhan
5 Smt Sati Bai
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 Shri Ram
2 Abdul Matin
3 United India Insurance Co Ltd Tara Complex GE Road Power House Bhilai Durg CG
...Respondents
! Shri Yashwant Tiwari and Shri Amiyakant Tiwari counsel for the appellants
^ None for respondents No 1 and 2 Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel counsel for respondent No 3
CORAM: HONBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA CJ & HONBLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J
Dated: 01/12/2010
: Judgement
ORDER
(1st December, 2010) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle 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 Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short `the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No.78/2003.
2) As against the compensation of 42,78,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Vijay Chauhan, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the 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 Vijay Chauhan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CIR-8067; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of 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.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 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,72,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vijay Chauhan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
6) Shri Yashwant Tiwari and Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, 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.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- only.
7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the awarded and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
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.2,81,500/- 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 Vijay Chauhan used to earn Rs.10,000 - 15,000/- per month as Fruit Vendor, the evidence led in that behalf was not clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we 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.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.
12) Considering that deceased Vijay Chauhan was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.85- 90/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum.
13) 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.
14) Considering that deceased Vijay Chauhan was aged about 32 years, multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years.
15) 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 Vijay Chauhan 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 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.53,500/- at Rs.6,500/-.
18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,81,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,35,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,500/-.
19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.53,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.
20) No order as to costs.
J U D G E