Tigali and Another vs Ramkumar Satnami and Others

N.K. Agarwal, J.

Heard on admission.

The instant appeal is directed by the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10/ZG-2114 & Trolley No. CG 10/ZG-2115, against the award dated 08.02.2008, passed by the find Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (for short ''the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 58/2008, whereby and where under total sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded for the death of Sudhara Bai in favour of claimants against the Appellants.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.07.2006 at about 11.30 AM while the deceased was going on the main road of Bilha, was dashed by the said Tractor bearing registration No. CG 10/ZG-2114 & Trolley No. CG 10/ZG-2115 and pursuant to the injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she died.

The claimants, who are nephew and son & daughter of nephew, filed an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''Act, 1988''), claming Rs. 22,96,000/- as compensation against the Appellants.

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material available on record, awarded total sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants.

Shri MK Bhaduri, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that the claimants being second and third category of legal representative of deceased cannot claim compensation u/s 166 of M.V. Act. He would further submit that the award of Rs. 20,000/- on the Head of Love and Affection is on the higher side and same is not awardable under Second Schedule of the MV Act, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, Shri Sameer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit that in view of recent decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in case of Premlata and Ors. v. Rasul Khan and Ors. 2008 (2) CGLJ 378 (DB) and in case of Smt. Puni Bai and Ors. v. Smt. Manjushri Chatterjee and Ors. in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 761 of 2007, decided on 11.09.2009, for the death which occurred in the year, 2006, the notional income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 36,000/- and even by taking dependency as 50 percent and by applying multiplier of five, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 90,000/- and by adding in this amount Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estates, it would come to Rs. 94,500/- which is more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal, and in view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard the counsel appearing for the parities, perused the pleadings and documents and award impugned.

In view of recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matters of Premlata and Smt. Puni Bai (Supra), the notional income in the year 2006 ought to have been taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 3 6,000/- per annum, for computing the amount of compensation. By taking into consideration Rs. 36,000/-, the compensation would come to Rs. 90,000/- which is even more than the amount what has been awarded by the Tribunal without adding any further sum on other Heads.

Shri MK Bhaduri also failed to point out as to how a person who is class II heir of the deceased in the absence of any legal heir under class I is not entitled to claim compensation, therefore, this contention raised by Shri Bhaduri that claimants are not entitled to claim compensation, has also no merit and the same is rejected.

In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side rather it is on lower side, therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellants is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.