Emi _nQ$muw mG$Ekw.wmw®%mgw mmmukymmwwmm i§m§a _ mxnmt , ¢ mg? .m a mnm@w%wwum . $®Ewmmum mu wmwmghmww wgmww a? wmnmmm, @gmmm Emu gwwm mmwwwm w; .w p m 'm mgm xwmg mmu “Eal; «”rwu w 3g3$ mg w.“ .M. Mamwmgm a n. nV i 31 3i. r.» EEuaEmmw Kym: $0.. m x m m m m v m w w u “mama” Gucnwm ”(mémmwmmm. mmawmnw mmwuawEm.“ w 1 Vfhx, 1.? i. Egmn. .3" . $g§$$§§ .1 . E, m9‘x”3mmummxr : mvv H ‘ Nme W r$$bamdeniS N0. ”i 8; 2. Shri 33mg? K, Agmwa? & Shré sweeps #égrawaé, ieamw counsei for resgonden’i N43 @RQER €33? £mg: mag? I u?“ w; nave The faimwing 6¥de¥ of ihe Cami was pa$se§ iay ggtnzcrw :‘EKEma, Q‘Eg; 21# , V .Wuis is ciaimants? agpeai for enhansamem a? i‘ne campensaiion awafded by téw Thirteemh Aéditimag Motar Acsidem GEL; Tfibuaag (F118;): Raipur (fer Sheri ”the Tribunai’), vide §zward daied 31 .01 .2005, passed in C§aim Case Maw/25%. 2‘ The ciaimanés, unferiunate widew and chHdren GT decea$ed Twamm Siaimeii cam‘aensaiian 9f R3.2G,25,GGD;’- Toy féiing a daim paitim Linda Sectien 166 3f the Metar V&h%c§sa Ac? fes’ his death r‘ the maim accidem‘. an 2§.01 2364 when his bic; cie wa$ da$hed l Qy IrJrse offending vehickg imak bearing regégtivaian NQEG-G4-G—4694; resuiimg in his imiaaiameous éeath 0a ‘Ehe we: EiseEi The maima§?t$ wréher BEeaded éha‘t deceased Twaram W33 s a"ec% abeui 55 years and wed i0 8am RS43,00£¥~ per mamh by woi’king wiih Prem Tiaveis, Rajim. 3. The owmy, ériver and insuira of the offemiing vehici twck wm‘ested the ciaim and denied their iiabimy i0 pay campengatian :y ta $me maimanis. i . The hwgrer of the truck teak ihe fume? :iea thai éhg QfrEvar cf tha affendmg vehiCEe truck wa$ not hoEdmg a va§id % éruck waa beir‘sg péied in breash ef me € 'h 4. The ciaimantg examined AW-‘t Santcsh Kuma AWQ r, Mathesh Kuma? Dhruv ahd AW3 m La? Sam m sapp§3r€ of thair Re dam, wheFeaa ihe awner, a‘river em§ imurer 0f ihe mick did net wr . y wzm m rtx za ne an e§$ ebui Wham! o a siase scrutiny of the gvidence ied before it id ‘ihaw’: deseased Tufaram died on accoun‘; Qf the ingurieg xwstgiinecé by Em in the me atcmdem an 26.01 2604; the asddem w m‘ ascufrec; dug t3 fa$h am fxegzigent ériving 0? 'ihe dE'iveg' 0f ‘ihe ing veh%cle truc a3 the offalwdmg vehicie mick an ihe sate. m k: € awi $ wred Wm é ngue Caa! i a dnn W¢ m mg haxmna ‘rwc twm Limited the imur’ame Campany was: iiabie t pay compematmn : o . "€he Trihai $se3$ed tha incame of thcg cie$ea$ed at o an a R$L1,50{}l- ar menth and R$.18GODf-a pgr amum. deducting g , m' ”af3’d of Ra’ISDOG/v "‘mwa§'ds that §3er$ona% expemes a‘ the §€ce&sed V3 claimants' depmdency wag assewé ‘ , ec "L R$.i2,GGOI— per amum. By muitiplymg ’{he annua} dagendmsy 0f s Rs.‘:2‘GGQ/- with ’zhe mmwiier of 5; the csmgemaEian wa$ werkeci 0s, i0 R$.6G,OQQ/-, By awardémg RS23$Glm tawama: fuw’aE @xpenses; R3.2,50£§f— mwams mag 6f e ae am R35‘OQU. mwayrx {e35 01? csmmium ic; i‘he widow, the Tribunai awarded a Ma Jm Q; R3 $9 5Qf‘y aa cowpemaam m me Gianna; “a far he deajh a? damaged Tuiamm m ’ma mam? accédami. The Tg‘ibwm‘; furiher directed paymem 0; irz‘ierest m “w 33mm amcuw r? m.“ jggg 3f ‘h aasm em i‘ *he dai of aciuai paymemt. g cm'ngematim 3* u$ SJ SGQ’ (Q 7% m3: anmm fmm We da i 5 T"e m Ma ‘ ”F. 3m PK Tulsyan, learned caumel .far ihe appeHanés V ’sqbmit’ied iha‘: the Tribunal h§$ en’ed in moi: acceptmg the ‘ciamgnts’ evidence aboui me income 0f the dEaceasw and m §a$$esgmg his incame at Rs": ,50Gf— Ina? mmth and §sr§ 8,00% per ‘annam oniy; in seéeciing ihe icwer mwtipher of '5; and in awarding 1km compensaiwn 03‘ Rs.69,5GO,/— Gniy. 1 9V :5. ’ $hri Sanjay K Agrawai, ana $hri Eudeep Agrawai, ieamed soun$ei far respondent No.3 — Na’éionai inwrance Campany Limited, on the; oiher hand, supparkeci the award and cantended tha‘i a3 cieceased Tu§aram wa3 found ti; be beiween 8Q - 65 year's of aga the compensaiien of Rs.6§;500/- awarckad by ihe Tr£bunai is just and pmper cammnsatian in the fame; and sErcumsiance§ m” ihe case. 9. The findmgs recordea§ by the Tribuna§ ihai d5cea$ed Tuiaram ciimi on accaun‘i of the inguries eus‘temed by him m the meier ascident on 26m ‘2GQ4; the eriver of the affeneing vehieie imek was responsibie for the aeddeni; and we inemer ef the of§ending vehide éruck was iiab!e ie pay cambeesatien m the claimante heve new a't'iained finaiity as the reepondems have nei wee; eey appeai againet the awam. Thai apart there is everw‘nemmg evidence available en vecerd to estebiish the abeve facts beyoed any shédew 0f doubt. We, therefere, a‘ffifm ihe above f§ndinge recorded by the Tgyibunai ‘20. True, the ciaiman‘ie pieaded that deceased Tuiarem Lieed i0 eem ReaOGW- per mehth by woeking in Prem TreveB, Rajim. The Ta‘ibunai whiie discarding €he evidence ied by {he ciaimanis abeué rRU A . The wetionaE éncome of Rs.’é§,€3Q/- wa$ prasmébed in the 0 t Encame of‘ihe deceased oughi t9 have asseswd his imome on G bagiE of the noicmai income prescribed in te‘Seead Em t hn Schedule unéer Seoiion 163L113} of i’ne Motm vehicies Act. 4 l Sconé Schedufe in the yea 1994. The accident in the preseni cee wherein deceased Tuierem ieet his life “wok lece in the year e o y 2084-7 W me reese in ihe pricee of ihe eeeeni§a§ commbciit§ee i o g and ’ih ooei ef living during éhe erioe ‘oeiween ‘ihe year ‘iQ‘ee am? E h ‘ 2GO4 s €eken iffao amount, e notionaé moome of Rei5OOQ/L pemibeof n the yea? 1 % wouid certaéniy some to RS3QOGI— in re 9 5 ee; 2004. We, merefore, propose to {e-oempute the cempeneaiion taking the income of Ehe deceased Tuferam at R.3§,0/- pa” annum. e03 ’1. By deduciin ‘33” of Rs.3§,090!- iewards ihe peysone! 2 g / expeneee of the deoeeé, the ciaimenie’ dependency ie eeeesed a? Re.24,U/— per aanum. As eeceaeed Tuéaram wee sown io be aged about 65 yeere in ihe peeingertem :‘epoyt, hough é‘ne ciaimamte p!eadee' that he was 56 yeare‘of age. we do mi ‘find any fem: in ihe approach of the Tribunal in hoiding that deceased Tuiei’am was 6Q — 6S years ef age an ihe date of *th aesiden? As such, we do mi find any g’euii in the eeiection of muitipiier of 5 by the Tribaeei, ’234 By muitipiying the anneai deeenciency‘ cf Re24,00©/— with ihe mui‘zipiier of 5, éhe comeensation worke out is Rs.’ii2£1,0{§{)./u. The ciaimante are furihei‘ entiiied to receive Re.5,f}00i— towards; __w_ funerai expeneee; ReiOGOX— {awarde iese of eetete; anti LJ—c’ he £ é e e we w se s OG h t g @ :Rs.5,GOQ/- fGr i055 0f canSomum R3 the widew. The ckain’mma ’ihua became enizitfed ta receive a t6€8§ $um o? Rs.1,35i060!— as [Csgmwémsatkm mr the death cf decea$ed ?u§aram in the mmar ia$siden§ on 28.04; .2004. .4 Learned counge! fer the pame$ subm§tted that with a View is avaid any gossibie ciispuie between the parties abeut the §er30tj , fw-which "me ciaimants am entmed to receive mterest on ihe whamced amcunt of campenSation; the &moum 0f interes% 0n the enhénced am‘sunt of compeneatéon may be quanEfied in ihie ameaE éteeif. i5 Considermg an the relevam factore mciuding ’ihe deiay in diegacsai of the claim petition and the pfesent aepeai and the fac‘i *ma‘t we lneurance Cameany amne ie not to be mamed for ihe de‘ay in ihe mate”. we quantify the amaunt of interest on the enhanced amoum of compeneation 0f R365‘SDOK- at Rs.14.500/-‘ 1’5. For the feregoing reasons. the appeal med by the e aepeBan‘ts/ ciaimante for enhancemeni of the cempeesatmn is G aiicwed in pea The cempensatéen e’f Re.69,5§0f- awafded by the Tribunai is enhanced t0 Rs.1,35,090£~ wiih furiher quantified emeunt of intemst of Re.14,500l— an f’ne enhanced ameunt af compeeeaEEce of Re.65,500/-. i7. Respondem Nefz The Netiema! Eneurance Company Limited, is granted ihree months’ iime fer depositing the teia! eum o§ Qs.8{3,09{lf‘ {Re.65;500/— tewarde enhanced emeum of cemeeneatien + Rs.‘§4.SOO/v iewafcle the quantéfied amount of err» v L ._ Of1 I\ @ the enhanCed amcsunt of compenSa‘cian a? V é‘ni’e-rest R$.65i500i—) before tha concerning Claims Tribunai. padma / r, No 0mm 35 m costs. Sdl- Sdl- Chief Justice 9 L7 >/r<;:,Li» Sun“ Kumar Smha ‘ Judge ‘ /