^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SKR! SUNIL KUSvlAR S!NHA, J. IVJisc. Appeal No. 147 of 2006 APPELLANTS CLA!MANTS ^ RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS 1. Ku. Savita Yadav aged about 20 years D/o Gangaram Yadav 2. Usharani Yadav aged about 18 years D/o Gangaram Yadav 3 Ku. Lipika Yadav aged about 16 years, D/o Gangaram Yadav 4 Gajendra Yadav, aged about 12 years S/o Gangaram Yadav 5 Gangaram Yadav, aged about 42 years S/o Late Ramji Yadav (Appeilant No. 3 to 4 being minor on behalf of through their iegal guardian father the appellant No. 5 Gangaram Yadav) Ail R/o Shantipara, Bus Stand Bhiiai-3, Poiice Station-BhlIai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Jabeer Miya @ Javed S/o Jakir Khan, R/o-Moudhapara, Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) 2. Abdul Kadar S/oAbdut Sattar, R/o- Rajataiab, Raipur, District-Raipur, Registered owner of Minibus registration No. C.G.04/E-0283) 3. Bukhari Transport, through Proprietor Roshan Aara, W/o H.A. Ka!im, Resident of Link Road, BiSaspur (C.G.) Registered owner of vehicie Truck registratlon No. C.G. 10/ZB-0554) 4. The United Insurance Company Limited, Through Djvlsiona! Office, Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, DIstrict-Raipur (C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck registration No. C.G. 10/ZB-0554 and Minibus registration No. C.G.04/E-0283) MSSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORyEHSCLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appeijants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Ms. Bharati Soni, iearned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (14th Juiy, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: This is claimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 29.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 110/2004. 2) The appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Janki Yadav, claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 07.12.2003, when the Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.04/E- 0283 in which she was travelling met with an accident with Truck ..^sg!T ^' -,-^':-'':f^^ 1 ^. ^..:.^ ^^£^' 3 INMI (Tanker) bearing registration No. C.G.10/ZB-0554 due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver ofthe Minibus, resuttlng in muttiple serious injuries to Janki Yadav, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of her treatment in the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Janki Yadav was running a dairy and used to earn Rs.100/- per day. 3) The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicie [Vlinlbus and the owner and insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied their liabiJity to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer of the Minibus took the further plea that the driver ofthe Minibus was not holding a valid drivlng iicence and the Minibus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4) The claimants examined AW1 Ku. Savita Yadav in support of their clalm, whereas NAW1 Mohd. Khafid Faridih and NAW2 Ashok Kumar Ghosle were examined in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Janki Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accjdent on 07.12.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Minibus; as the offending vehicle Minibus, on the date of the accident, was insured with The United Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the daimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased Janki Yadav at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notiona! Income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the 4 &0; Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multipljer of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Janki Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, Jearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,62,000/- only. 8) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4 The United Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- though the claimants could not establlsh that deceased Janki Yadav had any regular income. 9) Ms. Bharati Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supported the award. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Janki Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 07.12.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are not under challenge before us in this appeal. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence avaiiable on record to estabiish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11) As the claimants couid not produce any cogent and reliable evidence to estabtish that the deceased was running any dairy at ali, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunai in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income. 12) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act in the year 1994. If the increase in the prices of the essentiaf commodities and the cost of iiving between the year 1 994 and the year 2003, the year of accident in the present case, wherein deceased Janki Yadav lost her life, are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to re-compute tEie compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. ,,.^^^-<^. .^":'^ "^.. ---^ ' '•S1, ^^, : Y ^/ '^^s^v Cs^: 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased; the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that claimants 1 to 4, the minor children of deceased Janki Yadav are primarily dependent on their father claimant No.5 Gangaram Yadav, we are of the opinion, that the multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funerat expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estafe; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,15,0007- as compensation for the death of Janki Yadav in the motor acddent on 07.12.2003. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submltted that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties 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 itseif. 17) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Jankj Yadav iost her iife took place in the year 2003; the ciaim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2004; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2005; and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon was filed by the appellants/ ••^:^^^ .•^s~%/ .^ ^ ^. '^</.:y ^.^^- INNNB' ciaimants in the year 2006; and the appeai is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition 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.53,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,15,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/-. 19) Respondent No.4 The United insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.53,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice SdJ- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi