CAV Judgment

1. In the cases, the cross appeals have also been filed by Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that he has no instruction from Respondent No.2.

2. In view of above, since, there is no representation made by Respondent No.2, the cross appeals have been filed by her are dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of judgment dated 13.05.2016, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Claim Cases No. 41/2014 & 40/2014, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

4. The gist of the claims before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 25.10.2013, Pawan, son of Shantilal of village Sapos, was taking guests at his house, deceased Santarabai and Bhuvan Satnami, on his motorcycle bearing No. CG-06-D/2508 to Sankara to board a bus. Near the dhaba at village Baldidih on NH-53, the driver of truck No. CG-04-JC-8823, Raju Nayak, coming from the Raipur side, drove the vehicle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind, causing an accident. As a result, Bhuvan Satnami and Santarabai, who were sitting on the rear seat of the motorcycle, sustained fatal injuries on their heads and other parts of the body, and died on the spot. On the report of the incident being lodged at Police Station Pithora, Crime was registered.

5. In Claim Case No. 41/2014, it is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Santara Bai was aged about 45 years and was married. She was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as a labour. Due to the casual death of Santara Bai, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimants who are the husband and children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/-.

6. In Claim Case No. 40/2014, it is claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Bhuwan Satnami was aged about 50 years and was married. He was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as a labour. Due to the casual death of Bhuwan, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimant who is his wife. Therefore, the claimant had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 13,86,000/-.

7. In Claim Case No. 41/2014, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. Considered the age of the deceased as 60 years and the fact that the claimants are the husband and children of the deceased, 1/6th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.6,000/-. Considered the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years, multiplier of 8 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. Further, a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,20,000/-. However, the Tribunal considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle (not impleaded as a party), therefore, awarded 50% of the total compensation amount i.e. Rs.2,10,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum against respondents, from the date of application till its realization and in default of payment of compensation 9% rate of interest shall be applied. Hence, the appeal (MAC No. 1227/2016) is for enhancement.

8. In Claim Case No. 40/2014, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. Considered the age of the deceased as 60 years and the fact that the claimant is wife of the deceased, 1/2 of the income was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.18,000/-. Considered the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years, multiplier of 8 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs