HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISeMtH AT BIL^Pim DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJBEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants G Misc Appeal (Cl No. 995 ef 2008 1 Rajkumari, aged about 25 yeara, widow oflate Dashrath Ram Manjhawar 2 Ku Mohni, aged about 2 yeare (Minor) D/o Late Dashrath, through natyral guardian mother appellant No.1 (Rajkumari) 3 Dulari Bal, wife of Shri (tembheer Manjhawar, aged about SOyears 4 Gambheer Manjhawar, aged about 60 years, son of Late Barahi Manjhawar All are permanent residents af village IQiaira, Tah and Ds& Bilaspur (CG) Respondents VERSUS Bisun Ram son of Jd<na Ram Uraon, aged about 25 years, resldent of Kalipur, PS Bdauli Distt Saiguja (CG) Chaitram Kujur, aged about 50 yeare, son of Shri Garjuram Kujur, R/o \ a Karra, PO Patipara, Tah Ambikapur, Distt Sargula (CG) The New India Insiwance Go. Ltd., Korba, through the Dlvtetonal Manage, New India Insurance Co Ltd., Near Bus Stand, Bilapsur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectton 173 ef Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Sudhir Kashyap, coureel (orthe aflaetents. Shri DN Prajapati, counsel for respondent No.2. '•V: 1 9-\ Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (04thJuly,2011» The followlng order of the Court was passed by tojeev 6upta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Addtttonal Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short the Tribunal') vlde awaid dated 07.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.315/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,20,000/-, clalmed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, mlnor daughtw and parents of deceased Dashrath Ram Manjhawar, by filing a cfaim petition under Section 166 of the Mrtor Vehteles Act, tor his drath in the motor accident on 20.09.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,54,500/- as compensation along wlth tnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petlUon till ttie date trf actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence t«l before it held that deceased Dashrath Ram Man^iawar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.09.2007; the accldent occurred due to rash and negl^ent driving ofthe driver ofthe offendlng vehicle Tractar-Tretley bearing registration No.CG -15 A/4407 and CG -15 A/44^; as the abow offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident, was .-•s' -s -».•-"& /v^ \ I '' ^ •-7/ 4-. insured with the New India Insurance Cmnpany Limited, and the Insurance Company coutd not establish any breach of ttre poltesy condltlons, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compaisation to the ctalmants. 4) As the respondents have nol filed any appeal agartnst the award, the above flndlngs recorcted by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the dece»ed at Rs.lO)/- per day and Rs.2,50<y- per month assumirg that deceased was working only for 25 days in a month. By deducfc'ng 1 /3"1 of the annual income of Rs.30,000/- of the deceasai towards the personal expenses of ttie deceased, the clalmanits' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. By multlplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,(XX)/- wlth the multipliw of 17, the compensation we®worked out to fte.3,40,000/-. By awrarding Turther sum of Rs.14,a)0/- under other hesKls, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,54,500/- ss compereartlm to ie ctaimants for the death of deceased Dashrath Ram Mar^havar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment <rf interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,54,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peUtlon till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sudhir teshyap, leamed counsd for the a(q llante submitted that the Triburail has erred in assessing tt»income aS the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month on the assumption that the deceE^ed was working only for 25 days in a month; in deducttig <g*^. s: // ^ ,.^-y ^ 1/3"' of the income of the deceased towards hte pereonat expenses; and In awarding low compensatton of Rs.3,54,500/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, teamed cwnsel for pespomterrt No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limfted, the Insurer oftheoffendlng vehicte Tractor-Trolley on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,54,50W- awaided by the Tribunal cannot be temiNl as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Shri DN Prajapati, leamed counsel for res|»ndert No.2, Chaitram Kujur, the owner of the offendtng vehtele Tractor-Troltey also supported the award. 9) True, the claimarrts pleaded that deceased D^irath Ram Manjhawar used to eam Rs.4,000 - 5,000/- per month from Ws tailoring work, no cogent and rellable evfatence was led tefore the Tribunal for estabtishing the Income of the dweased to that extent. We, therefore, do not flnd any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the Tribunal after assesstng the daily income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, has certainly erred in assessfng his monthly income at Rs.2,500/- per monUa assumlr^ that the deceased was worldng for 25 days onfy tn a month. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have a^essaJ the lirewne of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000'- per annum. ^ 11) We, therefore, propose to recompute ttie compensrtion taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12) By deductlng the usuat 1/3rd of Rs.36,0(»/- towards the pereonal expenses of Itw deceased, the ctaimante' clependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that deceased Dashrath Ram Manjhawar was % yeare of age on the date of the acddent, we are of theopinlon that myltipller of 16 woukl be afyropriate In the present case in view of the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Varma (SnA) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporatton and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Gases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for tto age group between 31-35years. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,(X)Qf- with the multiplierof16, the compensation works outto Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wklow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/-as compensation for ttie death of deceased Dashrath Ram Manjhawar in the miAor accident. 15) Leamed counsel for the parties aibmitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which theclaimants are entttled to recelve Inter^ton ttieenhanced ^.. •• ;•-*. ss ^ amount of compensatlon, the amount of interest on the enharoed amount of compensation may bequantified in this appeal kseff. 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of ttie iraitter inchKlhig the delay in disposal of the claim petiUon and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.44,5(X)/- at Rs.5,500/-. 17) For the foregoing reasmis, the appeat fNed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the conipaisafion is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,54,500A awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,^,000/- wlth further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,500/- on the enhanced amaint of compensatlon of Rs.44,500/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the New India Insuranee Company Limited is granted three months' tlme for depositing the total sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.44,500/- towards enhanced amwnt of compensation + Rs.5,500/- towards quantified amcunt of Inter^t on theenhanced amount of compensation of Rs.44,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. - Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/.. R.N. Chandrakar '•s' padma Bj