Ponam Bai and Others vs Tukaram and Another

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 31st December, 2004, passed in Claim Case No. 74/2004. As against the compensation of Rs. 11,05,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Krishna Netam by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17th April, 2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,48,750/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Krishna Netam died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17th April, 2004; the deceased who was driving the Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-06A/6590 and the driver of the other vehicle Metador bearing registration No. CG-04-ZB/0211 equally contributed to the accident, in which drivers of both the vehicles died; as the above Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. By multiplying annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 9,500/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,97,500/-. As deceased Krishna Netam who was driving the Truck at the time of the accident was held liable for the accident to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the other vehicle Metador was directed to pay Rs. 1,48,750/- i.e. 50% of the compensation assessed at Rs. 2,97,500/- to the claimants as compensation for the death of deceased Krishna Netam in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,48,750/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Krishna Netam also equally contributed to the accident; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,48,750/- only.

Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 the New India Insurance Company limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the drivers of both the vehicles died in the accident, the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Krishna Netam also equally contributed to the accident.

Shri Govind Dewangan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 Tukaram Dewangan, owner of the Metador also supported the award.

So far as the Tribunal''s finding about the contributory negligence of deceased Krishna Netam to the extent of 50% is concerned, it is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Truck and Metador died in the accident. Both the vehicles i.e. Truck and Metador were coming from the opposite directions. It was noon-time accident and as such, the drivers of both the vehicles had full opportunity to avoid accident till the last moment. As the drivers of both the vehicles failed in avoiding the accident, the Tribunal has rightly held that the drivers of both the vehicles equally contributed to the accident.

On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Krishna Netam who was driving the Truck at the time of the accident equally contributed to the accident.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 2,97,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Krishna Netam used to get Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. Even the employer of the deceased/owner of the Truck was not examined before the Tribunal to establish the above fact that deceased Krishna Netam was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum.

The claimants'' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.