WWQTW mxww ma “Wmwxm “w! wrakgvw MyamWWwmw Wm m H w mw m Q& ,aaimwx m awgwmw‘r mxmwa mhwsg Quad?m gm, wnnn gmmumgq “wwwamwmw m {.Uwa; 2 21% ¢nw 3mm? MgamwwEa a? S.ha mx Q§ammm m _ éaoé Q”2% r w. mmwi Q cwmawmma. ( m. mmm ism U5 rm+mXmmwjrwmw wmmmw mmmaagcwT, wmmw‘m. m” woymm XcEmw @c rm? 2p 3v m" wwwww mmmmmwacw A, ”Ema. Jim mwa w.m3. m3 mgwEmE“ mmma mvcgmm“Em; U? .Umgowxmséaimm“«$0 mméwwmg, mmmnw nag 0awmmE ¥vw .ama Jo. M mngm wm, m minor «mvwmwmnwma wsqecmy§o§mw Ucémwm wmegaxa KR”; mwmw wmwmw. m3 Qymm“.03?UWEQ mammvcr 337gEmmm3 wwwwmgm x mfwmmaE ”Acamww‘m wfngymg. vmm mm EmmwQa Qémwmh mama“ mgcw ww “Nam? SEQ 0..“ mam 20 MMmaxaxwxm 33$ hm m magmar : gwQmr wgcnmmml $§§m3 m. mica.” 3&3” La T 2mg}? gmm” ammm $3M Ab <mamm. a? Q Q“ mam. 2a m aQQ‘WKN mmEw Emmmwm mgw mmnmmm 4 M mum mmmmg wmynwwycw? 3W :x‘gmnw 43m Zmé 5mc§wom ajgmmgi . wmwm3m$ Zmamw Umcmw , . O W Ema: M. (A) W L)x. @ M§SQELLA§¥E$5S ikPPEAL UW’DER $E3Tiaw ’%?3 w: TH§ EGTéFzi VEHE ...E$ 3&3‘" ‘E‘Qg‘g Weseni: Sm Sudeexa ,ixgarwai, §eamed cauns&i far me *weiiam mom mr resnm Ger: 4Q vui'i N u’x {ihaiiefjee its a cebma m? gespandem MQ. Shfi Q. Aziz, §e€amed counwé for reaamdant N96. $R§§R ' @gf‘mwéé, 2mm The fwcwing cmar cs? the Cam wag pasaed by Raggw @uyig; kiwi: This ié c§aimani§ appea¥ fm enhancement {3f the camgaematim awamed by the Sazanci Adfjitionai Mmar écciden‘z Ciaims Tribuna: (F.T.C.)A Mmngek Dist‘t. Biiaspur {far 5he¥i ‘the Tubunal) Vlde award daTed 90 Q“ 90%. pa3$ecé in Ciaim Case NO‘§’§ I2Q04. 2. An ameuni Qf Rs.22,27,GGOf~ waS Ciaimeci as campanaatéan by ’zhe ciaimanm Lmfortunaia wicieaw, ménm chiiciren and §3arem$ 9f ciaseased Naiihuiai ?aiei by fiiing a c§aim petiiion under $ec§§on @66 8f t? \Aomr Veh mes Asi for ms ciaath in i§1e mc’mr agcéden‘t cm 04.06.2064 whefx he mei with an maiden? whiie a§§ghim§ fmm E‘xug beaing registratirm Na. MP 0Qf$f£342 dug ’za rash and negiégem driving of ES drive‘r. {esuiiing in hm instamaneous deafzh ‘ ran the 3330i itSeif‘ The ciaimants; furihar pmaded that Cjeceasugd ix ‘ Na‘d'huiw Pam was aged abeui 34 years and ueee‘ t0 eam ebem Rs.6,5€3€3/~ §3er mmnth as Mawm. 3. Tne evmer ame" an“ mswer 0' The nffendm Venice Bus m’ws ‘ ihe ciaim and denied "iheif iiabiiiiy i9 pay cemgemaiion ‘* "‘ . @ i0 :ihg Ciaimanis. The insurer cf Em aas tack the fume? piea ihai Ehe chiver 0€ ihe offending vehicle Bus was mt hcédifm a vam da'éving Iiceme emd me 3w was bang piiec! m brgach 0f ”(he paiécy QomégtmnS Bn garasg‘ad and AW3 Eacm Praaaé in swam of iheir céaim. whag'eas , {the Gwner, driver 3nd msumr c? ihe affending vehide Bus did mt axamirte am! wiiness in rebuitai. 5f “i"he Tfibunai 0r} a dose scrum}: 9f ma evidence ied befere u . heid, mat deceaseé Natthutai Paw dieé cm accaum 0? ’ihe injurEes 35sia€rged by “m1 in the matar acsidaam 0n Q4.D6.2004: We gccident accurred due t5 rash and megiégen‘i timing of €‘ne driver sf the affendéng vehicie Bus: the offemmg vehicle Bus an the daie of the accident was insured with the New inéia mwrance Compaw L§m§ied; the insurer a? th& Bus muw mi e€§tabli$h any breach Q; g ihe mlisy conditien3; the inSurer ag Such was liabie i0 33¢ sampgnsaimn ta ’[he ctaimanta s 6‘ 'fhg Tiibunm asses3ec§ ihe imame Q§r‘ihe decea$ecé ai Rs‘1,5GG/— per monih and Rs.’z&,QQG,/- paw amum. By deducimg The Ciaimants exammad AW—1 Suwasa Bai, AW—2 é.&xman 13rd 0f R348EJQQI= toward$ e mafia! axmemses ef ihe éecea3e$ the ciaimante‘ dependeney wee aesessed at s QZXSDGX- per annum. By multipfying i'he ennuai cieeendency cf D d RefajOOOI- with the multipiier of 15, ihe compeneaticm wee werirezed Gut ta Rs.i,80,GQQ/~. 8y awarding i‘urther eum a? Rs.5;DG(}/- mwarde Eoes 0f consoftéum ‘Eo the wiciczw and R3.2,€)0C§/— ‘ iewegie mnerai expenses, the TribuneE ewerdecé e tetai eum 0f R34 ,87,00G/- as campensatécn Ea the ciaimants for the death af deceaseci Nai‘zhmaé Pate} in ”the mom! accidemt. The §Tr§buna§ fmher directed payment sf énieresi m1 the abave amGunt of Cmmpensatian 0f RS4 i&7,Q£)OI- @ $95 pm amum from ihe daie af fmng o? the claim petiéion, mi ihe dam 3f aciua} payman’t. 7‘ $hr§ Sudeep Agarwaii ieamed caunsel for ihe appeiiams whmitted that the Tribunal has errec§ in not acceptmg tha claimants’ evidenw abwt 'ihe incame Gfhthe deceaSed and in asas§ssing hi$inccme at RSI! ,500l- per manth and R5.18,0£}0/- pa amum only; and in awarding km camgensaiion 9f R3.1,87‘,GQO/— Oniy‘ 8‘ Shri Q. Aziz, ieamed coun$el for rewandent N03 -« Tm New ind§a insurance Cempany Limited, 0n the other hand, sapported ihe award and cantended Eha’c the compengation c3?” ‘Rs.1;6?;000f— awamed by the Tribuna§ is wst and pmper mmpensation in the facts and circumsmnces 9f tha cased 9. Shh NIAK. Chatterjee, ieamed caunse§ for {eapondent N02, the Owner of the offending vehicleBw alsc $uppor’ted the award 1G. Thd findings recerded by the Tribunai that deceased ‘ Netthuia! Paie! died on accoum of the injuriee sueiained by him in the memr accident on 04.06.20Q4; ihe driver of fhe offending vehioie Bus; Wes feeeons‘ible for kne accident; and the insurer o? the offending vehicle Bue was nahEe to pay oomeeneetion io rne oieiman‘te have now attained finakity as ihe respondenie have noi fired any epeee§ ageiner 'Ehe award. Thai apen, there is A everwheiming evidence aveilah!e on reeord ie eetebiieh the above I s a fasts bayend any shadow 0? deubt. We, therefcre, affirm the abave finding$ recorded by ’the TrEbunaE. H. Tme, the ciaimant$ pieaded that daceased Natthulai Patei aged to earn Rs.6,5SG/— per month as Mason. but the evfdence ied in iha? behaif wa$ not of ciinching nature We, ’z‘nerefore, d0 not find my fauii En t‘m—E appmach 9f Tine Tr§bunai m diScarding the , n}aimams " ’ evidence about the incame of the daceased. T2. Nevefzhekess, ihe mcome of ‘Ehe deéeased assessed by the Triounai at R31 ,SOOf- per moth am’ R3.18.000/— per annum on éts . own osiimate is certainw or} ihe tower s§de am: requires reconsideration. u 13. The 'i’ri‘ounai whiie discarding the ciaimantgi evidence aboo’i i‘ne income of "z‘ne deceased oughi to have assessed his inceme en the basis {if éhe notionei iiicome erescribed in the Secom‘ . Scheduie under Seciion 163(A) ef ihe Motor Vehicles Act. i i4. The notienei ineeme of Re.’i5,0G0/- was prescribed in the . Second Scheduie in the year 1994. The accident in the present s case wherein deceased Natthuiai Petei ios’t hiswriife took piece in ine year 2004. if éhe increase in the prices of the essentéai ‘ commodities and the cost of living between the year i994 and the year 2Q04 are taken into consideration, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/— prescribedin the year i934 wouid certainiy come to Rs.36,0Q0i— in the yeer 2DO4. We. therefore. propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36.000/- oer annurn. 15. By oiaeducting '1f8rd of Rs.36,000i- towards €he personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants‘ depenciency is assessed at Rs.24:000f- per annum. ‘16. Considering that according ta the ciaimants deeeased Netthulai Patei was 36 years of age; in the postmodem {eport ‘ne was Shawn t0 be 4D years of age; his widows Ciaimani Ne.1 guwesa Bai was shown i0 be 3D yeam 9f age in the oiaim petit‘mn, we are m” the opinian mat muitipiier e§ 13 wams be appropriate m ’the‘pyesent case §n View of i‘ne dicium of ihe Aeex 00w“: in the . case of New indie assmance (3e, Lid Vs Keapana and others; reamed in 2M? §CJ 32$. 1?. By mui‘tipiymg the annuei dependency of Rs.24,DOGI« w§th ihe multiplier a? i3, the compensation works om t0 Rs.3.12;000/-A The daimams are further enmled to receive Rs.5,GQ£3f- tewards :funerai expenses; Rs.5;OGG/- towards toes of consortium ta the twidew; and Rs5EOOQI— fer toss of estate. The ctaimants, thus. ‘beceme emitted t0 {eceive e tetai suh cf Rs.3,2?,023G/— as s ccmeensetisn W the death of deceesed Natshuéei Patei in the meter aseideni‘. H3. Learned coensei fer the pa‘rtiee submitted that with a View te aveid any possibie dispuie beiween the parties abeui the peried fer which the‘ctaimante are entitiea to receive interest on the erihensed emoun’i of cempensaiies; me interest on the enhanced amemnt ei comeensaéioe may be quantified in this appeei iiseii. 1Q. Censidering eii the reievent facters inciuding the deiay in disposei of ihe ciaim petition end ine present appeei ene the test u mmwm @ tha‘i "mé insurance Campany aione i$ mi t0 be biamad for me aeiay . .m 'ine ) matter, we quantify ' the amount Qf - mterea‘t g an ma I enhancee: amaun’i of compensaiian m” RSAABSGQQL at R3.35,DGO/a. 20. Fm ihe fofegaing reassns, ithe appeai fiied by ihe appelianiss/ Claimants fm‘ enhansemem 0f the campawatian EE aWéwe‘é m glam The compensaiion 0‘? Rs.1,87,000l— awarded by {he Tfi’ounai §s eahanced i0 R$.3,2?;00Qi- wim fmhev gaani§f§ed améum cf §n¥§rest of Rs.35,00§im on the enhanced amaunt 0f mmgzen$aiion of ask: ,40,90Qx—. 2%. Respendent Na.3;’The New india §nsur&r3ce Qnmpany Limitgd: 'as gra‘miad ihree months‘ time 1‘03' dep0$iiing ihe ma sum of R$,1‘75,QOOE— (RSK‘:,4D,QQGI— towards enhanwd amaunt cf campensaiicm + RS.35,0QQ/- mward‘s 'the quantified amount m‘ linieresi cm ihe enhamed amount Gf campensation 0f 33‘ AQDQW— befme "ihe cancemmg Claims Tribunai. . f/S/dl"’ ’ r Sdl- suniLzKuma‘s‘“ha v Chief Justice / ; 22H NO Seder as t0 00313. Judge gubbu