HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURV DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON’BI:E SHRIRAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 373 of 2006 Appellants 1. Smt. Sagar Bai Nirmalkar, age — 28 Claimants yrs, w/o late Sampat Lal Nirmaikar. Ku. Mamta Nirmalkar, (Minor) age—12 yrs, D/o Late Sampat Lal Nirmalkar. 3. Ku. Nileshwari, (Minor) age—10 yrs, D/o Late Sampat Lal Nirmalkar. Ku Roopa (Minor) age-08 yrs D/o Late Sampat Lal Nxrmalkar 5. Dushyant Kumar N'rmalkar (Minor) age—O2 yrs S/o Late Sampat Lal Nlrmalkar 6. BEukau Ram Nirmalkar, Age—65 yrs, S/o Late Bhawar Singh Nirmalkar. 7. Smt Pargasa Bar age 6O yrs W/o y Bukhau Ram Nlrmalkar, appellants No2 to 5 through appellant no.1. All the above are R/o. Village-Kalal- tarale,Pest— “larenga, P.S.—Dhamtari, Tah. & Distt.—Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus 1. Janak Lal Pandey, age -— 34 yrs, S/o Non-applicants Paras Ram Pandey, By profession Respondents Driver, R/o. Santoshi Nagar. Tikarapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (cs) (Driver of the Mini-Bus No C G O4/E- D304) Razzak All Slo Multab All R/o Raja Talab (irrigation Colony) Ralpur Dlstt Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Mlnl-Bus No C G 04/E- ssa3o4) ,e 3. The New India Insurance Corn'. Ltd. Divisional Office 13‘ Fioor, Thakkar Chambers, G.E. Road, Power-House, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (insurance Company of the Mini-Bus > No. C.G.O4/E-0304) ‘ Memo of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicle Act 1988 Present : Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent L, ‘ No.3 ORDER (16‘“ June, 2009) 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide awarddated 29.08.2006, passed’in Claim Case No.102/2005. l 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and : parents of deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar claimed compensation ‘ of Rs.23,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the. I Motor Vehicies Act (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 13.03.2005 when the Mini Bus bearing registration No.CG-O4/E-0304 in which he was travelling dashed against the ‘ Stationary Truck due to rash and negligent driving 6f the driver of the Mini Bus, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Sampat Lal Nirmalkar who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Sampat La! Nirmalkar used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Carpenter and Rs.12,000/— per annum from Agriculture. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus did not contest the clairn and were proceeded ex part9 before the Tribunal. 4. The insurer of the Mini Bus contested the ciaim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the piea that V the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus was not holding a valid driving licence; and the Mini Bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 5. The claimants examined AW-1 Sager Bai and AW-2 lshwar Kumar Sahu in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the Mini Bus did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.03.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus; as the offending vehicle Mini Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163—A of the Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was'asséssed at Rs.10.000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of v> Rs.1 0,000l- with the multiplier of 17, the Gompensation was worked out to Rs.1,7D,OOOI-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a‘ total sum of Rs.1,90.000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death‘of deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar in the motor accident on 13.03.2005. The Tribunal further directed payment cf interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, tlll the date of actual payment. 8. 'Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/— \per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,90,000/- only. 9. ' >Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.1,90,000l- as compensation to the claimants though the claimants could. not t establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them. 10. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.03.2005; the driver of the offending vehicle Mini Bus was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Mini Bus was-liable‘i'to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwheiming evidence available en record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Carpenter and Rs.12,000/- per annum from Agriculture, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 5,000/- per annum, is certainly. on the lower side. 13. The notional income of Rs.15,000l~ was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act in the year 1994. lf the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2005, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the-year 2005. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 14. By deductingthe usual 113'“ {5r Rs.36,ooo/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/— per annum. //’/ \ 15. Considering that deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, the multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case, in vview of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825. 16. ’ By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.3,12.000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5!000l- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5‘000/- towards loss of estate; and. Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,27,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sampat Lal Nirmalkar in the motor accident on 13.03.2005. 17. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that \M‘th a view to avoid any possible 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 duantitied in this appeal itself. 18. 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 delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interestwon the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,37,000l- at Rs.1 3,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flied by the appeliants/ claimants .for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,90,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,27,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,37,000/—. 20. Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,37,000l- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.‘l3,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanCed amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. subbu 21. No order as to costs. . Mi/fx._,\ SOV- ‘ " W1 Sunil Kamar Sd/' ‘l Sunil Kamar . Chief Justice Judge r