Misc. Appeal (C)NO v. CompleX, Main Road, KQsabadi, Korl)a

Smt. Phirtift Bai.w/o late Bhagat Ram, aged about 35 years. ^^ .,

2. Ranjeeta D/o late Bhagat Rarn, aged about-20 years,

3.' Ranjeet Kumar S/o late Bhag^t Rara, aged about 18 years,

4. Sanjeet Kumar S/p late Bhagat Ram, years, through caretaker and nafural guardian ruother Smt. Firtin Bai w/o late Bhagat Ram. 16 Driver Owner All R/o village Sapiya, Tahsil 8s District Janjgir-Ghampa (C..G) At present R/o Qtr. No. DM/65, Ompur Colony, Rajgamar, Korba, Tahsil 8s District Korba (C.G.).

5. Rssham Lal Yadav, aged about 27 years, S/o Kriparam, R/ovillage - Sandal, oufppst Urga, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.).

6. Sanjay Bagdiya, S/o late V.N. Bagdiya, aged about 45 years, R/o near Shubham provisionS Stores, Naya Talab, Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLESACT,1988. HIGH COURT OF CHItATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Misc. Appeal (C) No.958 of 2012 Appellant National Limited Insurance Company Versus Respondents Smt. Phirtin Bai and others Present: Shri Manish Upadhyay and ,Shri Qamrul Aziz, counsel for the appellant. Aopeal under Section 173 Mofor Vehicles Act 1988 ""> ORAL ORDER (Passed on 6th November, 2012) The following Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Heard.

2. This is an appeal Bled by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against order dated 26.04.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 108 of 201 1.

3. By the impugned order^ the leamed Tribunal while partly allowing the Rs.5,70,000/- by way of compensation for the death of one claim case awarded a sum of Bhagat Ram, who died in vehicular accident. So the challenge in this appeal is to the quantum of compensation which according to the appellant is on high side and hence it should be reduced from Rs.5,70,000/- to a lesser amount?

4. Also heard on the applicationmade by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by 72 days.

5. So-the first question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for condonadon ofdelay ofaround 72 days in filing this appeal? :^ •^ 1y^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \

6. In our opinion, the delay of 72 days totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficientcause, which is required to be made out under Section 5 of the Limitadon Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal, then there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellant waited for 72 days to file an appeal. That apart, neither proper facts are pleaded nor any documents are filed in support of such allegations, except usual averments.

7. In view offoregoingdiscussions,weare of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condqnation of delay in filing the appeal. The apptication is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. 8; As a cbrisequence, the appeal too is disinissed as being barred by time. Since the appeal is beirig dismissed as barred by time and hence, is not necessary for us to examine the controversy involved in appeal ori raerits. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed as barred by time.

9. Even then we perused the impugned award with a view to find out as to whether ahy-case is inade out entertaining the appeal, because we do not wish to be too technical in disinissal of appeal on the ground of limitation. Having perused the record of the case, we find that no case even on facts andevidence is made out by fhe appellants.

10. It is a death case :bccurredinra vehicular accident. On the date of accident, deceased Bhagat Riam was aged about 38.years and was working as a: skilled labour (fitter). The deceased's monthly income was held to be Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal l'/4th towards his personal expenses determined the dependency @ Rs.3,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-(3,000xl2xl5) love, affection, mental agony, maintenance and loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for loss ofconsortium, and Rs.5,000/- for funeral and Rs.20,000/- after deducting s-sass^ ^ ^Kk 1 "ig"" ^r ?,S3-'S£?;"" 1J'W<^"-L"-^T expenses. Thus the claimants were awarded a total sum of Rs.5,70,000/- by way of compensation for Uis death.

11. In our opinion, if the appellant (insurance company) was so keen to attack the finding on facts or to oppose claimants' case on this issue before the Tribunal, then, they ought to have adduced evidence in rebuttal. In the absence the Tribunal was justified in of any rebuttal evidence, accepting the swom testimony of the claimants' witnesses. In our view, a skilled worker is easily capable of 12. .earning Rs.200/- per<lay after d'oing lliejob which is a minimum wage prescribed by the State und'er the Minimum Wages Act. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the deceased was eaming Rs.200/- per day. It is not by any stretch of imagination in the nature Indeed to hold ofherwise and of bonanza to the claimants. reducing to less than Rs.200/- would be conta-ary to law.

13. Thechallengewasessentiallyonthequantuinasbeing on a higher side. We do not find it to be so, on the basis of fact's and evidence adduced by the claimants. In addition, looking to the nature of work done by the deceased, his daily earning, age and dependent inembers in the family such as his wife and three children, what has been awarded to the claimants is just and proper. therefore, find that

14. We, tUe Tribuhal has rightly awarded compensation ;to the claimants. THe compensation awarded in our opinion, cannot be said to be either unreasonable or excessive. It is in our opinion a just and reasonable one within the meaning of Section 166 of the Act and cannot be termed as bonanza to the claimants.

15. There was rio oth&r argumenfs urged by leamed counsel foi- the appellantlto attaek the impugned award exeept whaf is iaken note of above. lfe:"i !.:a IIt'S ^ '*!&.—S^

16. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly disinissed.

17. No cost. Sd/- (Abhay Manohar Sapre) JUDGE Sd/- (G. Min&iijuddin) JUDGE Bini ~s?t '•^ r