Claimants HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Coram:- Hon'ble Shri Suni! Kumar Sjnha & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ M.A.No. 1226/2005 1. Pramila @ Prabhabai Kannauje, Wd/o Late Avon Lal Kannauje, aged about 30 years. 2. Omprakash, S/o Late Avon Lai Kannauje, aged about 14 years. 3. Ku. Laxmi, D/o Late Avon Lal Kannauje, aged about 11 years. 4. Ku. Rekha, D/o Late Avon Lal Kannauje, aged about 8 years. 5. Bharat La! Kannauje, S/o Kejau Ram Kannauje, aged about 55 years. : 6. Godavri Bai, W/o Bharat Lal Kannauje, aged about 50 years. Minors Appellant No. 2 to 4 represented by through their Natural Guardian & Mother Appellant No. 1 Prabha bai @ Pramila All Rlo Viliage Parsada, Post Balod, Thana - Mandir Hasaud, District-Raipur(C.G.) Versus 1. Ghanshyam Kumar Nishad, S/o Udhoram Nishad, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Parsada, Post Balod, Thana - Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Driver and Owner of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle Bearing Regd.No.CG04.CF 5314 2. Bajaj Ailianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianze General insurance Co. Ltd. District - Raipur(C.G.) (insurer of the vehicle Hero Honda Motor Cycle Bearing Regd.No. CG04-CF 5314) Non-Applicants MSSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE VEHICLESACT Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate for the appeiiants. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.2. (06.12.2010) Following order of the Court was passed by Suni Heard. The appellants have fi!ed this appeal, for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 92/2004 by the Fifth Additional Motor AccidenS C!aims Tribuna!, Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 20.07.2005. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Avon Lai Kannauje fiied a ciaim petition under Section 166 ofthe Mcitor Vehides Act, daiming compensation of Rs. 7,10,0007- for his death in the motor accident, which took place on 04.12.2004, when his bicycle was dashed by the offendlng vehicle, Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. CG04-CF-5314 on account of rash and negiigent driving of the said motor cycle by respondent No, 1 . The claimants pleaded that the deceased was running a laundry shop and was earning Rs. 3.000/- per month. The Tribuna', on close scrutiny of the svldence led before it, he!d that it was not established by the appetlants/claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, i'nerefore, resorting to the proviso of Section 163 A ofthe Aet, 1988 held the income of the deceased as Rs. 15.000/- per annum on the basis of notiona! income prescribed therein. After deducting 1/3 towards the personai expenses ofthe deceased from the said amount, the dependency of 'the appellants was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per annum. By appiylng muffiplier of 17 to the said dependency of Rs. 10,000/-, the compensaBon, was worked out to Rs. 1,70,OOQ/-. By awarding hirther sum of Rs. 9,000/- for medicai expenses and funeral expenses, the tota! amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,79.000/. The Tribuna!, thus awarded a tota! sum of Rs. 1,79.000/- as compensation to the appeliants/ciaimants for the death of deceased Avon La! Kannauje in the motor accident on 04.12.2004.i ]The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filinglaflthe ciaim petition till the dateof aetua! payment. i! Mr. Suresh Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 15.000/- per annum.cn the basis of notional income. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in second Scheduie under Section 163 (A) ofthe Motor Vehicle Act in the year 1994. Therefore, looking to the.rise of prices. of the essentia! commodities and cost of iiving from 1994 to the year 2004, t'ne Tribunai ought to have assessed some higher amount as annua! incoms of the deceased. He. prayed for suitabte enhancement in the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing on beha'f of the insurance company/respondent No. 2 apposed these arguments and supported the award passed bythe Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at 'ength and have a!so perused the records ofthe claim case. Pramiia Bai (AW-1) is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased was running a iaundry shop and was earning Rs. 150/- per day. Narsingh Bharti (AW-3) has also deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 150/- psr day. Th®Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses held that itwas not established thatthe deceased was earning Rs. 150/- per day. The Tribunal, thersfore, resorted to the provision of Sectlon 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act and held the annua! income of She deceased as Rs.15000/- on the basis of notiona! income prescribed under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehic!e Act. Admittea'iy, this notional income of Rs. 15000/- per annum was prescribed in the year 1994. Considering the fise of prices of the essentiai commodities and cost of living in between 1994 and 2004, certainSy the above notiona! income of Rs. 15,000/- can be taken on some higher side in the subsequent years. Be that as it may. Admitted'y, the deceased was a washerman and was running a laundry shop. Thus, the deceased was skilied tabour. The accident took place in the year 2004. !h any circumstance, it can be safely taken that a male ski!!ed iabour wouid have easily earned Rs. 2,0001- per month in the year 2004. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to re-compute the compensation by hoiding the income of the deceased as Rs. 2.000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Sy deducing 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants v/ou!d come to Rs. 16.000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 32 years. Wife of the deceased was aged abqut 30 years and the sons and daughter of the deceased were aged about 14 years, 11 years and 8 years. Apart from the above, the parents of the ,..„__ ......_.i"L-. 1?*" pfc ''-"""1;lj fs":..^'.y f' :'l^^i'yf"" deceased were aged about 55 and 50 years. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to apply multiplier of 15 in this matter. By app'ying muitiplier of 15 to th& annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/- the compensation works out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 15,000/- under other permissible heads and Rs. 7,000/- towards the amount incurred on account of medical expenses, which the Tribuna! has assessed and awarded, the total amount of compensation v/orks out to Rs. 2,62,000/-. The appeliants/claimants are thus, entitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs. 2,62,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Avon la! Kannauje in the motor accident on 04.12.2004. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,79.000/-. By deducing Rs. 1,79.000/- from Rs. 2,62,000,'- the difference comes to Rs. 83,000/-, which the appetiants/claimants are entitled to receive as amount of enhanced compensation for the death of deceased Avon La! Kannauje in the motor accident. ; To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as a'so the daimant'sappeaLand that the Insurance Company aione cannot be blamed for such delay, ws deem it appropriate to quahtify the interest, which we quantify as Rs. 7.000/- In this Therefore, the appeliants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 90,000/- more (Rs. 83,000/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs. 7,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which they shali receive from the Insurance Company. The Bajaj Aliianze General Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent No. 2 is iranted three months time to deposit this amount before the concerned ClaimsTribunal. The appeai 'is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shail be no lers as to Sd/- sunilKumarSinha Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge