Chattisgarh High Court
Fulesri Widow Of Ramjit vs United India Insurance Company on 5 November, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M.A.No. 2363 of 1999
Fulesri Widow of Ramjit
...Petitioners
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company
Limited
2. Dev Pal Saran Singho
3. Harishchandra
4. Birbal
...Respondents
! Shri A.K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant.
^ Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the respondent
No.1/Insurance Company.
D.B. HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON. SHRI DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, JJ
Dated:05/11/2008
: Judgement
05.11.2008
This claimant's appeal for enhancement of
compensation is directed against the award dated 29.9.1999
passed in Motor Accident Case No.25/99, whereby learned
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikuntpur,
Camp Court - Surajpur, has awarded compensation of
Rs.94,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date of application to the claimant for the death
of her husband namely Ramjit Yadav, who died in a motor
vehicle accident on 15.4.1996, involving tractor bearing
registration No. MP 27 B/0429, which was owned by
respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1 for the
relevant period.
The claimant filed a claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- with the averment that she
is the widow of deceased Ramjit Yadav, who was 50 years
old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per
month from his Provision Shop and agriculture. The
accident occurred on 15.4.1996 at about 16.30 hours in
Village-Inderpur and the deceased died on the spot.
Respondent No.1/insurance company contested the claim
petition on the ground that the vehicle in question was
being driven in breach of policy condition as the tractor
was used for other than agriculture purpose, the driver
was not holding valid and effective driving licence and
therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with
the responsibility of satisfying the award.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 also contested the claim
petition and took a stand that the claimant was not
dependent on the deceased as he had no earning of his own.
The accident occurred as a result of sudden failure of the
brake of tractor, the tractor was insured by the
respondent No.1 and therefore, liability to pay
compensation lies with the respondent No.1/insurance
company.
The applicant examined herself and her witness Bhola
(AW-2) in support of her claim petition whereas respondent
No. 1 examined its Branch Manager of Ambikapur and
Harishchandra. Respondents No. 2 & 4 also examined
respondent No.2 Devpal Sharan Singh-owner of the tractor,
and Birbal, respondent No.4-driver of the tractor.
Learned tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence
available on record, held that deceased Ramjit Yadav died
as a result of accident caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending tractor by respondent No.4; the
tractor was being driven by respondent No.4; though
respondent No. 3 did not have valid driving licence,
however, it has no effect as the vehicle in question was
being driven by respondent No.4 and the tractor was
validly insured by the respondent No.1 for the relevant
period.
Rejecting the claim of the claimant that her husband
was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the tribunal held that
the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per month from the shop
and his earning from agriculture could not exceed
Rs.20,000/- per annum and thus, quantifying the earning of
the deceased at Rs.26,000/- per annum, deducting 50% from
the above income towards the expenses, which the deceased
might have been incurring on himself and further deducting
50% from the remaining Rs.13,000/- with an observation
that the claimant must be earning at least 50% from the
agricultural land, assessed the loss of dependency at
Rs.6,500/- per annum. Taking age of the deceased as 50
years and selecting the multiplier of 13, compensation
towards loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.84,500/-.
In addition thereto, compensation of Rs.9,500/- on various
other heads has also been awarded to the claimant and
thus, a total compensation of Rs.94,000/- was awarded in
favour of the claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while
assessing dependency of the appellant on the deceased, the
tribunal has deducted 3/4th of the total annual earning of
the deceased, which is not permissible under the law and
the tribunal could not deduct more than 50% towards
personal expenditure of the deceased.
On the other hand, Shri Patel, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1/insurance company contended
that the tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency and
proper compensation has been awarded to the
appellant/claimant, which does not call for interference.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records of the claims tribunal.
As for finding of the tribunal that the deceased died
as a result of accident caused by the offending tractor,
which was being driven by respondent No.4 Birbal rashly
and negligently, as also earning of the deceased from the
shop at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and from
agriculture at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per annum, it has
attained finality as neither the respondent No.1/insurance
company nor any other respondents has preferred any appeal
against the impugned award. In fact, this finding is not
under challenge before us in this appeal.
For the purpose of assessing the quantum of
compensation, the tribunal has assessed income of the
deceased from the shop at Rs.6,000/- per annum and from
agriculture Rs.20,000/- per annum. However, while making
deductions towards personal expenditure of the deceased,
the tribunal has held that the deceased would have been
spending 50% on himself. After making the above
deduction, the remaining Rs.13,000/- has been further
deducted on the ground that loss of income from
agriculture cannot be assessed to be 50% as the
appellant/claimant must be earning 50% from her
agricultural holding even after death of the deceased.
Thus, in our considered opinion, the calculation made by
the tribunal in this regard is erroneous. The deceased was
earning Rs.6,000/- p.a. from his shop, therefore, it could
be safely inferred that out of Rs.6,000/-, he must be
spending Rs.3,000/- on himself and hence, there is a loss
of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- p.a. to the
appellant/claimant under this head. Similarly, the
tribunal has already recorded a finding that on account of
death of Ramjit Yadav, the claimant has suffered 50% loss
in earning from agricultural land, therefore, the tribunal
ought to have held loss of dependency at Rs.10,000/- p.a.
in agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-.
In this view of the matter, we assess the total loss
of dependency due to death of Ramjit Yadav at Rs.13,000/-
p.a. and applying the multiplier of 13, since age of the
deceased at the time of accident was 50 years as has been
held by the tribunal, the compensation towards loss of
dependency comes to Rs.1,69,000/-. If we add further sum
of Rs.9,500/-, which has been awarded by the tribunal
under various other heads, the total compensation for
which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is assessed at
Rs.1,78,500/-. As the appellant/claimant has already been
awarded Rs.94,000/- by the claims tribunal, she is
entitled for an additional amount of Rs.84,500/-.
Since the appeal was pending from the year 1999 and
the respondent No.1/insurance company alone cannot be held
responsible for delay in deciding this appeal, we quantify
the interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.84,500/- at
Rs.8,500/- and accordingly, modify the impugned award by
enhancing the compensation of Rs.94,000/- to Rs. 1,87,000/-
.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the
appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.94,000/-
awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,78,500/- with
further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,500/- on the
enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,500/-.
Respondent No.1/insurance company is granted two
months’ time for depositing the additional sum of
Rs.93,000/- (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand) (Rs.84,500/-
towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,500/-
towards interest on the enhanced amount of compensation)
before the concerned claims tribunal.
No order as to costs.
J U D G E J U D G E