(23 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISIONBENCH r" CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc. Appeal No. 638 of 2006 Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants 1. Mituram, S/o Late Budrukalar, 40 years 2. Smt Suki, W/o Mituram, 36 years Both r/o Bazarpara, Lamker, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar (CG) VERSUS ^ 1. Narendra Singh Bajba, S/o not known, 40 years, R/o Tikrapara, Raipur (CG) 2 Smt An^/vari Begum, W/o Mohammad Hamid, C/o Warsi Travels, R/o Raja Talab, Raipur (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Dist Bastar (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (10mFebruary,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ^^ ^s^s Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.436/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,23,200/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Pankajnath by filing a clajm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.09.1996, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.59,000/- as compensation to the claimants along w'rth interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimants' son deceased Pankajnath died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.09.1996; the deceased/cyclist and the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.MP-23J/0213 equally contributed to the accident; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the clajmants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.5,000 /- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.5,000/- with the multiptier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.75,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.43,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.1,18,000/-. As the Insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus was held liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants, the Tribunal directed the jnsurer of the -Minibus to pay Rs.59,000/- i.e 50% of Rs.1,18,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that claimants' son deceased Pankajnath also equally contributed to the accident; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.59,000/- only. 6) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that claimants' son deceased Pankajnath who was on a bicyde also equally contributed to the accident is concerned, we do not find any material either in the evidence of the claimants' witnesses or the witnesses examined by the insurer of the Minibus to establish that the deceased also contributed to the accident in any manner. In ^£"2\ i( ..Ci^'l our opinion, the above finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises alone. 8) We, therefore, set aside the above finding recorded by the Tribunal and hold the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus alone was responsible for the accident and as such, the insurer of the Minibus is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to be assessed by us in this appeal. 9) As claimants' son deceased Pankajnath was aged about 18 years only and the unfortunate accident occurred in the year 1996, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 10) As deceased Pankajnath was unmarried on the date of the accident, 50% of Rs.15,000/- per annum is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.7,500/- per month by deducting 50% of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 11) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be of 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the .^S?T%,, /y^ ^ ^I^X % ^:^^'^. ]^ ^r : claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.7,500/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.75,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and for transportation of the body, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants works out to Rs.85,000/-. 13) Learned counsel for the partiessubmitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the clajmants 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 thjs appeal itself. 14) Considering all 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 blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.26,000/- at Rs.3,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the daimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.85,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.26,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum V3^ ^^s^ss m ^. of Rs.29,000/- (Rs.26,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of jnterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.26,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order asto costs. __ padma Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^