HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. MIsc. Appeal No. 839 of 2003 Claimant Non-appellants Keshari Lal Verma, S/o Shri Mansharam Verma, age 36 years, R/o Vill PO Udgan, PS Palari, Distt Raipur, CG VERSUS Tulsidas, S/o Hirau Galkwad, R/o Vil PO Basin, PS Suhela, Distt Raipur CG (Driver of Minibus No.MP-23 J/0506) Vasim Raja, S/o IVIohd Abbas, R/o Maudahpara, PS IVlaudahpara, Distt Raipur CG (Owner of Minibus No.MP- 23 J/0506) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisionai Manager, New India insurance Company Limited, Madina Buiiding Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, CG (Insurer of Minibus No.MP- 23 J/0506) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehjcfes Act Present : Shri CK Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2 though ser/ed. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Ad'/ocate with Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. >rd (03raMarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed ••.tT..,. .-l^^^&'-^ .^•^^it ^y^ 8 't I? w. Appellant Keshari Lal Verma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.05.2003, passed in Claim Case No.139/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,76,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,04,000/- as compensation along with interest '@ 6% per annum fromthe date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before ii held that claimant Keshari Lal Verma sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on S.05.2002; the injuries and the fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resuited in the amputation of his left leg above knee leading to permanent disability to the extent of 75%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driyer of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.MP-23 J/0506 in which the appellant was traveliing; as the above offendlng vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimant. fc^ .T .-•'». :»KjS^I| JJ ^^•-.'y' ^ ^.<s- ...i.. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained fina!ity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/-, per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Considering that the amputation of his teft leg had led to the permanent disability to the extent of 75%, the Tribunal assessed the loss in the future earning capacity at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the above amount of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the total loss of future earning capacity was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.23,978/- towards medicat expenses, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,03,978/-, which was rounded off to Rs.2,04,000/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,04,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri CK Sahu, learned counse! for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred selecting the lower multiplier of 10; in not awarding any sum towards pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance and attendant; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,04,000/-only. , 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported 4 the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counse! for respondent No.1 Tulsidas on the other hand contended that the driver of the Mlnibus was not responsible for the accident. 9) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. The loss of future earning capacity also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.18,000/- per annum considering the fact that the claimant was a Mason by occupation. 10) The Tribunal apparentiy has fallen into error in selecting lower muitiplier of 10 and the same requires reconsideration. 11) Appellant/claimant on the date of the accident was aged about 36 years. In our opinion, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 15 as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporatton and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 for the age group between 36-40 years. 12) By multiplying the amount of annual loss of future earning capacity of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,70,000/-. The claimant is further awarded lump- sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance and attendant. By adding further sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimant 5 ^'^ becomes entitled to 'receive a totaf sum of Rs.3,04,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 13) Learned counset for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimant is 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. 14) Considering al! the relevant aspects of the matter, 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 biamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- at Rs.10,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,04,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs. 1,00,0007- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest *iiS> 6 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 1Z1__ No order as to costs. Sd/- Oiief Justice Sd/- Suiul Kumar Sinha Judge padma