^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR SingleJBench : HonlbjejShn DNipRaosaheb Deshmukh, J, jVIiscellaneoysABP^al (C) No.681 of 2006 Deva Lal Mirjha and another versus Mukhtyar Malik and others ORDER Post for pronouncement of order (G -10-2008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ ^~1 .^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shn Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J, ApeeUants Claimants Resp^>ndente Non-applicants M.A.(C).No.681 of 2006 1. Deva Lal Mirjha, S/o Dukalaha Ram Mirjha, Aged about 56 years. 2. Smt. Jantari Bai, W/o Deva Lal Mirjha, aged about 51 years. All residents of Vill. Dewari, P.S, Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) versus 1. Mukhtyar Malik, S/o Hauj Malik, Truck Driver 2. Shasher Khan, S/o Sharif Khan, Both R/o Through K.G.N.Transport Co., Ring Road No.2, Near of Satkar Tanker, Bhanpuri, Raipur. 3. United tnsurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Krishna Complex, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 Present: Shri A.L.Singraul, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel forthe respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this lbH- day of October, 2008) This is an appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,61,100/- awarded by 9 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.36/2006. 2. In this appeal it is not in dispute that cyclist Bhuvaneshwar, aged 20 years, died on 14.01.2004 at about 8.20 A.M. on account of a fatal accident by Truck No.M.H.18-A 7662 (henceforth 'the Truck') at main m i ? road, Charoda. On the date of accident, the said truck was driven by Respondent No.1 owned by Respondent No.2 and insured by Respondent No.3. Claimants are the parents ofthe deceased aged 56 and 51 years. 3. The Tribunal assessed daily income of the deceased from tailoring work at Rs.80/- and monthly income at Rs.2400/-. Deducting 1/3fd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 8, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,61,100/- which included Rs.1,53,600/- towards of loss of dependency, Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5000/- cumulatively towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. 4. In this appeal, Shri A.L.Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed fhe impugned award on the ground that the Tribunalought to have adopted multiplier 11 applicable under the second schedule to the average age of the parents i.e. 53 years and daily income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.100/- by the Tribunat. Lastly, it was argued that Rs.5000/- cumutatively awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate is on the lower side. 5. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued in support of the impugned award. Reliance was place'd on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer and another, 2004 ACJ 53 while arguing that multiplier ought not to exceed 10 in such case. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, 1 have perused the impugned award. Assessment of damages to compensate the claimants is no doubt beset with difficutties because from the nature of things, it depends on many factors such as the amount that the deceased would have earned EL-' 0°) during the remainder of his life, the chances that the deceased may not have lived to their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased would have earned more or less income in future and the fact that after marriage he would have lived separately from the parents thereby monetarily reducing the dependency of the parents on him. In the present case, the deceased was a young man of 20 years and had started tailoring work few months prior to the accident. Oral evidence was adduced to prove that the deceased was earning at least Rs.100/- per day if not more from the tailoring work. Even though no documentary proof was adduced regarding the income of the deceased, it would have definitely increased over the years. Therefore, the Tribunal, in my considered opinion, erred in assessing daily income at Rs.80/- and ought to have assessed daily income of the deceased at Rs.100/- and monthly income at Rs.3000/-. Deducting 1/3 i.e. Rs.1000/- therefrom towards personal expenses ofthe deceased, the Tribunal ought to have multiplied it by 12 and assessed loss of yearly dependency at Rs.24,000/-. 7 . Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer has placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer and another (supra) whereunder in case of death of a young student aged 18 years, the fact that the parents were aged 47 and 43 years and that the deceased was unmarried and the fact that parents had their separate earnings being employed and educated were considered as a relevant factor for reduction of the multiplier to 10. In the present case, under the second scheduje to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier applicable to the average age of the parents is 11. In the cross-examination of Deva Lal i.e. the father of the deceased, it has not been shown that he was employed anywhere or was earning. Thus, there is no material on record to show that the parents of the deceased were contributing to the family expenditure. Nothing has been elicited by the respondents in cross-examination of Deva Lat to this effect. However, considering the fact that the deceased would have married in few years and thereby the dependency of the parents on him would have reduced monetarily, 1 am of the considered opinion that the proper multiplier applicable to the present case is 10. Loss of dependency is thus assessed at Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 10). Considering that the only son aged 20 years of the claimants had died in the accident, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5000/- to each claimant towards loss of love and affection besides awarding Rs.50007- towards loss of estate. In this view of the matter, the compensation is arrived as under: i. Loss of dependency (24000 x 10) ii. Funeral expenses iii. Loss of love and affection (Rs.5000/- each to the claimant) iv. Loss of estate Total Rs.2,40,000/- Rs. 2.500/- Rs. 10.000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs.2,57,500/- <~so 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,57,500/-. _i__— Sd/- ^ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 'C3!'Kf: Anj'ani