Chattisgarh High Court
Balkiram Khunte vs Ajaruddin Khan on 14 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No.1072 of 2017
Order reserved on : 10.11.2022
Order delivered on : 14.12.2022
Balkiram Khunte, S/o Manohar Ram Khunte, aged about 58 years,
Occupation Postmaster, R/o Lakramuda, Post Kotba, Police Station
Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Ajaruddin Khan S/o Mohammd Khan, Aged About 27 Years
Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Supa, Tahsil And Police
Station Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Present Address
House Of Bade Khan Boirdadar, Police Station Chakradharnagar,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Driver)
2. Aftab Khan, S/o Babu Khan, R/o Maudahapara, Raigarh Tahsil And
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Owner)
3. Bajaj Alliance, General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited. G. E. Plaza,
Airport Road Yarwada, Pune Maharashtra , Through Branch Office,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited, Shivmohan
Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri, Raipur Tahsil and District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant Mr. K. P. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
award dated 31.01.2017 passed by the MACT, Raigarh in Claim
Case Nos.573/2013, whereby the claim of the appellant/claimant was
partly allowed and he was held entitled to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/-
with 6% interest p.a., against which the present appeal has been filed
by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.12.2012 when the deceased
Ganpati along with others had gone towards Chandrapur for temple
visit from Village Kotba in a pickup vehicle and when they were
returning, near Bypass Road, Kosamnara Chowk, Kotra Road,
Raigarh, at about 5 to 6 pm, the offending vehicle Tota Motors Pickup
bearing Registration No.CG-13-D-9419 driven by the respondent
No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the deceased, as a
result of which the pickup vehicle overturned and the deceased
Ganpati along with other persons died on the spot, upon which a
crime was registered against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the driver
and owner of the offending vehicle and subsequently claim petition
was filed by the dependent of the deceased, who happens to be his
father.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be
enhanced suitably. The learned Tribunal has considered the income
of the deceased only as Rs.100/- while doing the work of labourer,
which is a very meager amount. The multiplier of 16 has also been
wrongly applied to the multiplicand, whereas multiplier of 18 should
have been applied to the multiplicand looking to the age of the
deceased, who was about 18 years of age at the time of accident.
Likewise, the amount awarded for funeral expenses, loss of love and
affection is also on very meager side and the same needs to be
enhanced. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the
compensation amount may suitably be enhanced on various heads in
addition to the amount already awarded in favour of the appellant.
Learned counsel has placed his reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company
Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others1.
4. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 despite notice
being served upon them.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company
supports the impugned award and submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in favour of the appellants is just and proper and it requires
no further enhancement, as such the instant appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. From the pleadings of the respective parties and overall evidence
available on record, it postulates that the accident occurred with the
offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance
Company and was being driven by respondent No.1. Evidence further
goes to show that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and
negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle, in which the
deceased and others were sitting, got overturned, and consequence
there upon, the deceased Ganpati and others died on the spot itself,
which resulted into filing of claim petition before the learned Tribunal.
8. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on
record, ocular as well as documentary, allowed the claim of the
appellant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- in
favour of the appellant/claimant with 6% interest per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition taking the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum while doing the work of labourer,
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
deducting 1/2nd towards his personal expenses and applying the
multiplier of 16 and calculating the compensation on other heads as
well.
9. In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the
compensation awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should neither be
meager amount of compensation nor bonanza.
10. Now the question which falls for consideration before this Court is as
to whether the compensation of Rs.4,08,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and
circumstances of the case or not.
11. The deceased at the time of accident was about 18 years old young
boy and his notional income was considered to be Rs.100/- per day,
monthly Rs.3,000/- and Rs.36,000/- yearly while doing the work of
labourer and after applying the multiplier of 16 to the multiplicand, the
total sum comes Rs.2,88,000/-. Apart from it, amount of Rs.20,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and
affection were also awarded. Therefore, total compensation of
Rs.4,08,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant.
(Rs.2,88,000/- + 20,000 + 1,00,000/- = Rs.4,08,000/-). But
considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2012 and the claim
petition of the claimant was allowed in the year 2017 and looking to
the rising price index, the notional income of the deceased can safely
be taken Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per year. Since at the
time of accident, the deceased was 18 years old young boy,
therefore, multiplier of 16 has wrongly been applied and instead of it,
multiplier of 18 should have been applied to the multiplicand after
deducting 1/2nd towards his personal expenses. (See : Sarla Verma
(Smt) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2.
The appellant/claimant would be entitled to the compensation
in the following manner:-
Head Amount awarded Amount enhanced
Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
Loss of income due to Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.4,32,000/-
death (24,000x18)
Total Rs.4,08,000/- Rs.6,07,000/-
Thus, the claimant is entitled to the total amount of
compensation of Rs.6,07,000/-. Since the appellant/claimant has
already been awarded Rs.4,08,000/-, as such after deducting the said
amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of
Rs.1,99,000/- (6,07,000 - Rs.4,08,000). This additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till realization of
compensation amount in favour of the appellant/claimant. The amount
received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced
sum.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned
stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to
cost (s).
Sd/-
Rajani Dubey
Judge
Nirala
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
