Niranjan Ekka & Ors. v. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhav Manohar Sapre MArCtNo.244of2013 APPELLANTS Niranjan Ekka and others RESPONDENTS Smt. Janki Devi Miri and others Versus MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance : Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, Counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (01.03.2013) Heard. This appeal (2) appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Mofor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") against the award dated 01.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.07/2009. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claimants and accordingly (3) the claim petition of awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Ishwar Ekka 8s Smt. Prabha Ekka, who died in a vehicular accident. ^'^ ^ ^. Also heard on I.A. No.l, an application made by the (4) appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by 436 days. So the question that arises for consideration in this (5) appeal is whether any case is made out for condonation of delay ofaround 436 days in filing this appeal? (6) unexplained. In my opinion, fhe delay of 436 days is totally It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause, which is required to be made out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Secondly, when theAct has given 90 days to file an appeal, then, there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants waited for 436 days to file an appeal. That apart, neither proper facts are pleaded nor any documents are filed in supportof such allegations, except usual averments. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion (7) that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. I.A. No.Ol is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly/dismissed. (8) As a consequence, being barred by time. Since the appeal is being dismissed the appeal too is dismissed as as barred by time and hence, it is not necessary for me to examine the controversy involved in appeal on merits. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed as barred by time. Even then I perused the impugned award with a view (9) to find out as to whether any case is made out entertaining the appeal. Having perused, I find that no case even on facts is made out by the appellants. ^ It is a death case. On 27-12-2008, deceased - Ishwar (10) Ekka and Prabha Ekka, while going to Gram Mudapara on a motorcycle, were hit by a Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G. 14-9045 (offending vehicle), on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. Due to this hit, both the deceased fell down and succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained by them. The claimants are sons of the deceased- parents. This gave rise to filing of the claim petition representatives of Ishwar Ekka and Prabha Ekka, under claimants, who Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, out of which, this appeal arises, claiming compensation for the death of their parents. At the time of the accident, Ishwar Ekka was aged about 42 years and Prabha Ekka was aged about 40 years (as mentioned in the postmortem report). It was alleged that Ishwar Ekka (father) was working as Mason and used to earn Rs.6000/- per month and Prabha Ekka (mother) was working as labour and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month, but no evidence was produced in that behalf. (11) The respondents contested the claim. The Tribunal by the impugned award partly allowed the claim petition. Since no clinching evidence was produced to prove of the income of the deceased, it held the annual income of the deceased (both parents) as Rs.15,000/-. After deducting towards their personal expenses, dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/- and then, by applying multiplier of 15 (10000 x 15), a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded to the claimants by way of compensation. In addition, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000-20,000/- towards loss of consortium, & affection, were awarded to the claimants. In this way, a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- was awarded to the claimants. ^f An interest was also awarded @ 8% per annum on the awarded sum. It is this determination which is impugned by the claimants being qn lower side, hence this appeal for enhancement. In my opinion, the compensation which was awarded (12) to the claimants by the Tribunal is just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed, in such cases, no fbced and static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts to work reasonable compensation to the claimants. This is what has been done by the Court in this case. (13) Learned counsel authorities through these authorities. for claiming enhancement. I have gone In my opinion, as observed the appellants cited some supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. Indeed, taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of compensation mentioned supra. In my view, therefore, taking into account the totality (14) of the circumstances taken note of supra, I do not find any ^ ground to further enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which in my opinion, appears to be just and proper keeping in view the requirement of the Act. therefore, liable to be dismissed on (15) The appeal is, merits. (16) No cost. Sd/- (Abhay Manohar Sapre) JUDGE