HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal (C) No. 651 of 2009 1. Ram Lal Binjhwar, S/o Shri Sadhuram Binjhwar, aged about: 49 years, 2. Smt. Neera Bai, W/o Ram Lal Binjhwar, aged about: 45 years, 3. Minor Kumari Rameshwari, D/o Ram Lal Binjhwar, aged about: 16 years, 4. Minor Manmohan Binjhwar, S/o Ram Lal Binjhwar, aged about: 14 years, 5. Minor Pancham Lal, S/o Ram Lal Binjhwar, aged about: 12 years, All Minors represented through : their legal guardian father Ram Lal Binjhwar, All are R/o village : Sukla Khar, Post : Banki Mongra, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (C.G.) Versus 1. Navratan Singh S/o Kartik Ram, aged about 30 years, R/o Village : Suklakhar, Post : Banki Mongra, Present Address Deepka Basti, Police Station : Dipka, Tahsil : Katghora, District: Korba (C.G.) (Driver ofthe offending Vehicle) 2. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Hari Prasad Jaiswal, aged about: 39 years, R/o Village : Suklakhar, Post : Banki Mongra, Present Address Deepka Basti, Police Station : Dipka, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (Owner of the offendina Vehicle) 3. National Insurance Company, Through : Manager, Branch Office 13, Minu Complex Kosabadi Road, Korba, Post : Kosabadi, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) (Insurer of the offendina vehiclel APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE NIOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT ACT, 1988 ApDearance: Mr. Jeet Patel for the appellants. Mr. Somnath Verma for respondent No.2 / owner. Mr. G.V.K.Rao for respondent No.3 / insurer. M.A(QNo.651of2009 ORAL ORDER (03.12.2009) Per^unil Kumar Sinha, J. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, and minor brothers of deceased - Sohanlal Binjhwar have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in claim case No.239/2007 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) on 23.12.2008. (2) The appellant/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,45,0007- on account of death of deceased Sohanlal Binjhwar in motor accident which took place on 19.07.2006 when the offending tractor and trolley bearing registration No.C.G. 12-F-0676and C.G. 12-F-0677 met with an accident, resulting into the death of deceased - Sohanlal Binjhwar. (3) The deceased was aged about 20 years. The appellants pleaded that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Through the appellants/claimants pleaded such income of the deceased but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature, therefore, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/-. From this amount, the Tribunal deducted 2/3 pn account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 10 and the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.70.000/- under the other heads and a total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. ^'y-^: /& -^.^ s^ •^^ ^ M.AfQNo.651of2009 (4) Mr. Jeet Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the income has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal; the deduction to the extent of 2/3 is also not proper; and a proper multiplier has not been used. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Somnath Verma and Mr. G.V.K.Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose these arguments and support the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused record in claim case. (7) Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working in the tractor and he was also earning Rs.2000/- per month by doing labour work, but the evidence led in that behalf was not satisfactory. It appears that the Tribunal relying on the judgments of this Court, held that looking to the rise in prices ofessential commodities and cost of living it may be held that the deceased must be earning Rs.30,000/- per year. When the evidence regarding the income of the deceased was not satisfactory and clinching, the Tribunal has rightly resorted to the schedule prepared under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and has tried to determine the notional income of the deceased. The notional income of Rs.15.000/- was prescribed in the second schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. Looking to the rise in prices of essential commodities and the cost of living in between the years 1994 and 2006, the Tribunal ought to have held the notional income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum as we have held in many cases. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum. (8) , The Tribunal has deducted 2/3 which was a permissible deduction in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Donat ^ ,-j2saasii>. 'ff S '^ -w^ M.A(C) No.651 of 2009 Lou/s Machado and others v. L. Ravindra and others, (1998) 8 SCC 633 but in the present case we find that apart from the parents, there are 3 minor brothers of the deceased who were aged about 16 years, 14 years and 12 years respectively. The age of the father of the deceased was 49 years and the age of his mother was 45 years. Therefore, we deem it proper to deduct '/2 instead of 2/3rd deducted by the Tribunal. (9) After deduction of % from Rs.36,000/-, the dependency works out to Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal has appljed multiplier of 10 which we feel to be a proper multiplier in this case in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombav -Vs- Laxman Iver & another, (2003) 8 SCC 731. By multiplying Rs.18,000/- by the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 15.000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.1,95,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,70,000/-. Therefore, the difference comes to Rs.25,000/-. The claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.25,000/- more as the enhanced amount of compensation on account of death of deceased - Sohanlal Binjhwar in the motor accident. (10) This enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. (11) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (12) There shall no order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- M-,. JJianwar Judge Anjani