rtt ^.s RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. E-t/^MlBI = OUiB! nAM/2«, CTHCH srsBaif&n ! i EuFr^°l?^?*iP!&.;t^ /^E—.;,—,——,!, ^iesu n'is.iu r^GH~Ci3imaHlS Natiiulal Gavei. S/o Dauram Gavel. Age 8bOUi 60 VS3FS, R/C PrSQatl NSQ&F Deepika Colony, Gevara Area, Qtr No. ?,^«^ '< AAH T'^^i-^^ Ey.—^^S-,.-,^/- r^:—4.*(^.^^E-.-. iviw s uc?u; ie;ii5H r\si^nuic3< ui3su rsAJives (CG) 1 Madan Sinah. S/o Pavana Sinah. age -t^A,,4. ^Ft ^^-ss.-.". f^A^, .^/.,*:^i auvus. -i-u ycsEo, ^/iw'^upci!.iLfi Drlver R/o iVlission Road. Korba Tehsii & Dlstt Korba (CG) 2 Jasvinder Kaur, S/o Gurudev Singh, A—t^/10 ,T^>ws— O/—.F*S-na—»——•„««.„<• r^^^ur; AQ8 t^Q ySafS; ?</G K§mS8gSfpSj"3< UBTn Road. Tehsii & Distt Korba (CG) 3 Taijuddin S/o Noor syiahammad, SaKin H'iF-"" Ti&h^'l P n^44 f.^^-^-. f/^^\ L/UI pG; I CE iS"E O; L/'EOt.i, tXUt tj'& ^ V/^31 4 Ismaiel,. Occupation Driver, SaKin r\..y^^ ~r^l^^ii o n.^u. [^^,/^^ /^/^\ /U! pS, 1 Sl i0i! vs, uis-ii r\ui &/a i^-'^^ 5 The Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd., Cltv Branch, Korba 'IT^ rsf a * ^ V: g^S^j-— •.^.ir !iff^.fr»»iThS'~ " ns^ ?3 ^€?iH€tf§°E ^^S^S. Sh" Av/adh Tripathi and Shrl Sunii Sahu, counsei T( the appeiiant. None for respondents No.1 and 2 thouah served. Shri MK Baeg,counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patet, counsel ft respondent No.5. .^•ff^. ^t" Wfi1" &!En«icf gft-tni ^^i® ^^»a^SjeSl.g £VE^j 'he foilowin.Q order of the Court was passed by Appeltant Nathuia! Gavel is seeking enhancement of ths compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Oaims Tribunal. Korba (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 31.07.2003 passed in Claim Case No.5/2002. ) As aaainst the comDensaiion of Rs.10,25,000/-, claimed by the appeilant / ciaimant, unfortunate husband of deceases Unmatibai bv fllina a daim petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, fo.r her death in the motor accident on 26.04.1996, ffie Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,15.000/- as comoensation along v/ith interest © 9% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it Sieid that claimant's wife Unmatibai died on account of the injuries sustained bv her in the motor accident on 26.04.1996: the accident occurred on account of rash and nealiaent drivina of th( driver of the offendina vehicie Truck beas la reaistratio' No. CPL-6109; as the offendina vehicte Truck on the date of the iccident was insured with the Onentai Insurance Companv LImited, e insurance ComDanv was liabie to pav comoensation to the snt. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appea! against the award. the above findinas recorded bv the Tribuna! have now attained final'tv. 3 K.\ w'^ it^ !rrshEinsi a%sffsis;s;^rj i"hi& in^r^rrss nf the r;erl&s< ! i !MU3 JS5 S30C3SSSU II iS 31 i^'UI 3 1S Ul i.i Rs.15,000,'- per annum on the basis of u v' ional incom' prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. By deducting 50% of the income of ths deceased towards her personai expenses, the ciaimant's dependencv was assessed at Rs.7,500/- per annum. Bv muitiDlvina the annual dependencv of Rs.7.500/- wlth the muitiplier ^f l^ Ui ! v. the comDensation was worked out to Rs.97,500/-. Bv iwardina further sum of Rs. 17,500'- under other head; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,15.000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Unmatibai in the motor accident. T'ne Tribunai turther directed payment of interest on trte above amount of compensation @- 9% per annum from 09.02.20001 till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Avradh Tripathi and Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsei for the appellants submitted that the Trsbunal 'nas erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- only. 7) Shrl Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Companv Umrted on the other hand contended that as the claimant himself admitted that hls wife not having any independent income of her own, thi compensation of Rs.1,15.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present 8) Shri MK Baeg, leamed counsel far respondent No.3, the owner of the seep in which deceased was Sraveliing also supported the award. 9) Appelalnt Nathulal Gavel was aged about 60 years on th< date of the accident, vi/hereas, his wife Unmatibai was shown to bs 50 yesrs of age in iier postmortem report. rrue, the ciaimant could not establish that his wife Unmatibai was having any independent regular income or her own, It nas come In the evldence thatshs regularlv used to assist.him in the agricuitural operatlons. The Tnl' rribunal Instead of awardina interest on thi int compensaiion of Rs.1.15,000/- ft^m the date of filinta of the application i.e.20.10.1996, has awarded interest from 09.02.2001, meaning thereby that the interest for a period of 5 years has not awarded. 10) The compensation of Rs.1 ,15,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, !s certainlv on the lower side and desen.'es to 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter. we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of intsrest component on the enhanced amount of compensatlon wouid make the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal flled bv the eppellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensatlon, therefore, is ai!owed in part. The claimant is 1 SiNfP''' awarded funher sum of Rs.25,OOQ/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation In addition to the sum of Rs.1.15,000/- awarded bvthe Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.5 the Oriental insurance Company Limited is aranted three months' time for depositing ffie total surn of Rs.25,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 'l4l—_N.oorderas to costs. sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Dadms