Santram Aogre (Dead) Through Lrs vs Pawan Kumar Soni
2022 Latest Caselaw 3285 Chatt

                                1

                                                                  NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       MAC No.855 of 2015

                 Order reserved on : 18.02.2022

                 Order delivered on : 06.05.2022


1. Santram Aogre (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Honble Court Order Dt.
   07-12-2021

 1-a - Nemichand S/o Late Santram Aogre, Aged About 43 Years

 1-b - Nemdash S/o Late Santram Aogre, Aged About 40 Years

 1-c - Shiv Prasad, S/o Late Santram Aogre, Aged About 38 Years

 1-d - Dev Prasad, S/o Late Santram Aogre, Aged About 35 Years

 Appellants No.1a to 1d are R/o Village Nayakbaandha, Tahsil
 Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Ganeshiya Bai, W/o Santram Aogre, Aged About 50 Years

3. Kumrai (Kumri) Sukhwantin Bai, D/o Shri Santram Aogre, Aged About
   17 Years

4. Kumari Satwantin Bai, D/o Santram Aogre, Aged About 16 Years

Appellants No.3 & 4 are being minor through their natural guardian
father Shri Santram Aogre

All R/o Villge Nayakbaandha, Tehsil and District Abhanpur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Appellants

                             Versus

1. Pawan Kumar Soni, S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Soni, Aged About 29 Years,
   R/o Chandi Nagar, St. Xavier High School Telibandha, Police Station
   Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Pawan Kumar Soni, S/o Bhaiya Lal Soni, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
   Chandi Nagar, St. Xavier High School, Telibandha, Police Station
   Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Branch Manager, Through IFCCO Tokio General Insurance Company
   Limited, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall Centre Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                    ---- Respondents

For Appellants Mr. R. K. Pali and Mr. A. K. Sahu, Advocates

For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 None, though served.

For Respondent No.3 Mr. Tassy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

C A V Order

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 28.02.2015 passed by the

7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case

No.60/2011, whereby the appellants have been awarded

Rs.143,750/- with 6% interest per annum as compensation for the

loss of life of deceased, which according to the appellants, is a very

meager amount and the same is under challenge before this Court

by way of this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2010 at about 10:30 am, the

son of applicant Nos.1 & 2 namely Sukhnandan was riding

motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Registration No.CG-04-DQ-0135

along with his nephew (Bhanja) and they were coming from

Abhanpur to Rajim. When they reached near Nav Bharat

Dharmkanta, the respondent No.1 driving motorcycle Hero Honda

bearing Registration No.CG-04-DJ-3734 rashly and negligently

dashed the motorcycle of Sukhnandan, as a result of which

Sukhnandan fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and died

on the spot, which resulted into filing of a claim petition by the

appellants before the MACT, Raipur. The appellants happen to be the

father, mother and younger sisters of the deceased and

Rs.14,70,000/- was claimed on various heads. The claim petition of

the appellants/claimants was allowed in part and total amount of

Rs.1,43,750/- was awarded in favour of the appellants, against which

the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the

compensation amount.

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 mason,

which is a very meager amount. He further submits that the Tribunal

has further erred in applying the multiplier of 10 instead of 18 while

calculating the income of the deceased. Likewise, the amount

awarded for funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of love and

affection is also on very meager side and the same needs to be

enhanced. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred

in holding the deceased to be equally responsible for the accident

holding that he was also driving the vehicle in rash and negligent

manner, thereby the total compensation has been reduced 50%,

which is not the correct appreciation of facts and law as well.

Therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and the amount

of Rs.12,86,250/- may kindly be enhanced on various heads in

addition to the amount already awarded in favour of the appellants.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by

the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others

vs National Insurance Company Limited and others 1

4. None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, though served.

1 (2012) 11 SCC 738

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 is clear 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 and it was also found that the vehicle of the

deceased was also driven in rash and negligent manner. The finding

of learned Tribunal is based on charge sheet of both the accident

cases. It is clear that the Police has registered one criminal case

against respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar and one criminal case

against the deceased Sukhnandan vide Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/10, thus the

finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was also liable for

the accident and it is a case of contributory negligence is based on

proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on

record.

8. The deceased was 20 years old and was earning Rs.250/- per day by

doing the work of mason according to the appellants, but in absence

of any proof or document in this regard, his income was calculated

as Rs.100/- per day and Rs.36,000/- per year. After evaluating the

evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.143,750/- with 6% per annum in favour of the

appellants/claimants taking the notional income of the deceased as

Rs.36,000/- per annum, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal

expenses and applying the multiplier of 10 and calculating the

compensation on other heads as well.

9. The question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether

the compensation of Rs.1,43,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just

and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the

case or not.

10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) has

held in paras 15 & 16 as under:-

"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.

16. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13."

11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others

vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2 has elaborately

discussed regarding what should be the multiplier while calculating 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

the income of the deceased. In the case in hand, the age of the

deceased is 20 years, thus applying the principle laid down by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of

18 would be applicable in the instant case and the same would have

been applied to the multiplicand.

12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter

of Sarla Verma (supra) and Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) in the

present case as well, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, while

calculating the income of the deceased, the age of the dependents

have been taken into consideration, whereas while calculating the

same, the age of the deceased should also have been taken into

consideration. The age of the deceased is 20 years, thus multiplier of

18 would be applicable in the present case and the same had to be

applied instead of multiplier of 10 to the multiplicand while calculating

the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased has been

held to be Rs.100/- per day and Rs.36,000/- per annum for the work

of mason and the same appears to be justified in absence of any

proof or document that the deceased was doing the work of mason

and was earning Rs.250/- per day. However, the compensation

towards conventional heads (Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses,

Rs.40,000/- for love and affection and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate) is

enhanced collectively to the tune of Rs.15,000, thus the total

compensation on conventional heads would be Rs.62,500/-

{Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- for love and affection

(25000/- + 25000/-, father + mother) and Rs.2,500/- for loss of

estate}. The deceased and the respondent No.1 have been held to

be equally responsible for the accident, therefore, looking to the

contributory negligence of the deceased and the respondent No.1,

the claimants are entitled only half of the total amount. Thus, the total

income would be Rs.2,47,250/-. (24000x18 = 4,32,000/-) (4,32,000 +

50,000 + 10000 + 2500 = 4,94,500) (4,94,500/2 = 2,47,250/-).

13. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,43,750/- in favour of the

appellants, therefore, after deducting the said amount, the

claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of

compensation of Rs.1,03,500/- and the same shall be distributed

between them as per the order of the Tribunal. This additional

amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.06.2011 till

its realization. The amount received by the appellants would be

adjusted in the enhanced sum.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part leaving the parties to bear

their own cost (s).

Sd/-

Rajani Dubey Judge

Nirala