Smt. Sarita Bhargav & Ors. vs Gokul Prasad Sidar & Ors.

This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 07.12.2022 passed by the 10^th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No. MACT/1586/2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs.20,54,720/- has been granted for the death of deceased.

The facts pleaded in claim application filed u/s 166 of M.V. Act are that deceased Shyam Prakash Bhargav died in a motor accident took place on 11.09.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 is widow, appellants 2 & 3 are minor daughter & minor son and appellant no.4 is father of deceased. They being legal heirs, filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.50,34,000/-lakhs on various heads.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing the job of driver, but the learned Claims Tribunal had taken the lesser income of deceased as Rs.9,200/-per month. The amounts granted under the conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the appellants have failed to prove the nature of job and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased treating him as unskilled labour and thus it has passed the just award which needs no interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

It appears from the record that the claimants have not produced the admissible evidence regarding driving licence and income of deceased. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding nature of job and income of deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken his monthly income as Rs.9200/- treating him as unskilled labour which cannot be said to be on lower side. Since the age of deceased was found to be 31 years and there are 4 dependents, following the principles laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 16 which cannot be said to be unreasonable or unsustainable.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for each claimant towards loss of consortium or love and affection and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate which appear to be slightly on lower side in view of the principle of 10% automatic enhancement for every three years under the conventional heads. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- granted towards funeral expenses is on higher side.

Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below :

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,54,720/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,63,720/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 20,54,720/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 9000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.