Bhuneshwari And ANR. v. Shekh Vahid And ORS.

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) NO. 943 OF 2011 1.

Bhuneshwari, Wd/o Narendra Kumar Verma, aged about 28 years 2.

Savitri, Wd/o Sukhdev Verma, aged about 70 years Both are R/o Village Dargahan, Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1.

Shekh Vahid, S/o Shekh Rafiq, aged about 26 years, R/o Station Para, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver) 2.

Mohd. Salim, S/o Late Ali Mohammad, aged about 27 years, R/o near Devshri Talkies, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner) 3.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., near Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Appellants :

Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/01/2018 1.

The present is a claimants' appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar Kanker, vide its award dated 16.3.2011, in Claim Case No. 14/2010.

2.

Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in a death case, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,21,000/- to the claimants with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application. While passing the award, the learned Tribunal has fixed the liability for payment of compensation upon the insurance company to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and rest of the amount was directed to be paid by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that it is a case where the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of the deceased, so also the claimants would be entitled for income under the

-2future prospects while quantifying the compensation. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads also deserves to be enhanced suitably as the same is on the lower side. It was further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the insurance company to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- whereas extra premium has been paid for the extra passengers travelling in the vehicle and therefore the entire liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurance company instead of owner and driver. 4.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3-insurance company however opposing the appeal submits that the award seems to be fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 5.

Perusal of record would show that the policy in the instant case has been proved by the witness of the insurance company and has been marked as Exhibit D-1 where extra premium covering the risk of seven persons has been accepted at the rate of Rs.50/- per passengers, totalling Rs.350/-. The witness of the insurance company who has been examined has deposed that the extra premium for the seven passengers at the rate of Rs.50/- each has been accepted and the liability of the insurance company in the instant case would be restricted only to Rs.1,00,000/-. The view of the Tribunal in this regard stands further fortified from a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Others, 2008 (5) SCC 736. This Court thus does not find it to be a strong case for intefering with the said finding of the Tribunal in restricting the liability of the insurance company upto Rs.1,00,000/-. 6.

So far as the ground of enhancement of compensation is concerned, considering the date of accident this Court does not find any discrepency on the part of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income at Rs.6000/-. However, in the light of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

-3the claimants would be entitled for 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

7.

Accordingly, accepting Rs.6000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, the yearly income comes to Rs.72,000/- to which if 40%, i.e., Rs.28,800/-, is added towards future prospects, the amount would come to Rs.1,00,800/- of which if 1/3rd i.e., Rs.33,600/-, is deducted towards the personal expenses, the remaining amount would come to Rs.67,200/- which if multiplied applying the multiplier of 16, the amount would reach to Rs.10,75,200/- which is the amount towards the loss of dependency to which the claimants shall be entiteld for, instead of Rs.7,68,000/- as has been assessed by Tribunal. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, instead of what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, making the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.11,45,200/-, instead of Rs.8,21,000/- which the Tribunal has awarded. 8.

As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award stands modified and enhanced to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.11,45,200/- and that the enhanced amount shall also carry the interest at the same rate as has been fixed by the Tribunal. It shall be the responsibility of the owner and driver to pay the entire amount, except Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal which shall be paid by the insurance company.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge