^o" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: Appellants V..- HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 905 of 2004 1. Smt. Manjit Kaur w/o late Mangal Singh, aged 33 years, occupation House Wife. 2. Baljit Sirigh s/o late Mangal Singh aged 16 years, student through Smt. Manjit Kaur widow of late Mangal Singh (mother & legal Guardian) 3. Kumari Maya Kaur @ Maya Devi d/o late Mangal Singh, aged 15 years student through Smt. Manjit Kaur wldow of late Mangal Slngh (Mother & legal guardian) 4. Respondents Maninder Singh S/o late Mangal Singh aged 11 years through Smt Manjit Kaur widow of late Mangal Singh (Mother& legal guardian) All R/o Chatai quarter Camp 2 Bhilai VERSUS Baliram s/o Gajadhar Singh Rajput, aged 27 years, Shantl Nagar House No. 424, Shwetamber Mandir near P.F. BhHai (Driver of vehicle No. M.P. 24G/0537) Sanjay Pawar, S/o late MJ. Pawar, aged 35 years. quarter No.8 A Road, No.16, Sector Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G) (Owner of Vehicte No. MP- 24G/0537) The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, 16 Ravj Shankar ShukJa Market. Power House, Bhilai through The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg (Insurer of Vehicle No.MP- 24G/0537). ^ 4''^" "" ^ ! ^ys^': " "V \.:1 ., / v^. ^. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLESACT Present: Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for the appeltants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (08th April. 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Aocident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 15.11.2003, passed in Claim Case No.27/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.35,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants. unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Mangal Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 08.12.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Mangal Singh died on account of the jnjuries sustained by him Sn the motor acddent on 08.12.2(XX); the deceased who was driving the motorcycle and the driver of the offending vehicte Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.24"G/(%37 equally contributed to the accident; as the above offending vehicle ^' ^^- Jeep on the date of the accident was insured wtth the Orierrtal Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.42,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.28,000/- per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rs.28,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,36,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.18.000/- under other heads, the total compensatton was worked out by the Trtbunal at Rs.3,54,000/-. As the driver of the offending vehtote Jeep was held liabte to the extent of 50% for the accident, the insurer of the Jeep was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.3,54,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs:T,77,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of fjling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Santosh Yadu, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred In holding that the deceased who was driving the motorcycte at the time of the acddent also equally contributed to the accident; in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing hts ...^ "^ ^,^ ^•'; ^"^ h\ \^- income at Rs.3,500/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,T7,000/~ only. 6) Shri Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as deceased Mangal Singh at the time of the accident was driving the motorcycle under the jnfluence of liquor, the Tribunal has rightly hetd him liabte for the accident to the extent of 50%. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding deceased Mangal Singh also liable for the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, from paras 7 and 8 of the award, we gather that the above finding was based on the contents of the postmortem report Ex.P/4 of deceased Mangal Singh, wherein it was categorically mentioned that in the stomach of the deceased semi-digested food was found with smell of alcohol. Thus, jt is apparent that deceased Mangal Singh at the time of ttie acddent was driving the motorcycle under the influence of liquor. 8) We, therefore, do not find any inflrmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Mangal Singh also equally contributed to the accident. 9) True, the claimants pteaded that deceased Mangal Singh used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month as Truck Driver, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. AW1 Manjit Kaur, the widow of deceased Mangal Singh stated that her husband used to ^^s^ ff^ j ^. ^-....^/' ^ ^^y '\,^.^'^ /^1 :--^ •l s ( Y.. give her Rs.6,000/- for household expenses, whereas AW3 M.P.S. Gill, the employer of the deceased certified vide Ex.P/6 that the deceased was paid total sum of Rs.6,000/- per month inclusive of salary, allowances and commisston. In thfe state of highly discrepant evidence about the income of the deceased, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 10) The Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.42,000/- per annum as even otherwise the salary of a Truck driver in the year 2000 was in that range only. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.28,000/- by deductjng the usual 1/3rd of Rs.42,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Deceased Mangal Singh was shown to be 35 years of age in his postmortem report and his widow Smt. Manjit Kaur was shown to be 33 years of age in the claim petition. In our opinion, multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 16 was prescribed for the age groups between 31-35 years. /"/ 6 w. '^. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.28,000/- with the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.4,48,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the total compensation works out to Rs.4,66,000/-. 15) As the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep has been held liable for the accident to the extent of 50% only, the claSmants are entitled to receive only Rs.2,33,000/-, whlch is 50% of Rs.4,66,000/-. The claimants have already received a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- under the impugned award and as such, they are now entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.56,000/- from the insurer of the Jeep. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects ofthe matter, induding the delay in disposai of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Companyalone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced arftount of compensation of Rs.56,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is altowed in part. 'vy' \ L While, maintaining the finding recorded by the Tribunal about the contributory negligence of deceased Mangal Singh to the extent of 50%, the compensation of Rs.1 ,77,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,33,000/- w'rth further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.61,000/- (Rs.56,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. | Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu