Coram ApPELLAN?$ “a kesmNDENm v ‘ %’F~<Ru 1t EGH COURT OF CHHATTKSGARH AT BILASPUR a DWESION EENCH HQNIELE $HRE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ; & HON’BLE SHR! $UNH. KUMAR $INHA, J. Misc, Angeal NO. 282 of 2004 Jogendra Singh, aged about 62 years, sen of Eate Hamam Singh. ‘Smt. Teerobai,“ aged abou€ 58 years, wife 0f Jogendar Singh. Both are residents of Kashiram Nagar, PS. Telibandha, Tah. and Distt. Ra§pur (Chhattisgarh) Versus Harjinder Singh, son cf Shri Gurucharan Sing, resident ef. Te!ibandha, RS. Tetibendha, Tah and D§stt Raipur (Chhettisgarh) 1D’river of the vehicie No. C.G. O4 e ZC G322; ‘ Suirjen Singh, son of Shri Jaswanfi Singh, resident of Kashiramnagar, P.S. Teiibandha; Tah end Disti. Raépur (Chhattisgarh) {Owner of‘the vehicse No. CG. 04 zs 6322f 3‘ The Orie‘ntef fnsurance Company Lfmited, through Branch Managen Branch Office; Medina Building, Jafl Road, Raipur (C.G.) (msured during 5.6.2002 to 4.6.2003) (insurer of the vehicre' No. co. o4 zc 0322) MISCELLANEOU$ APPERL UNDER SECTkON W3 OF THE r MCT§R VEHECLES ACT‘ 1988. h Present: Shr§ R. Pradhan & Shri Harsh MahantMiearned f counse; fer the appeiiants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Abhishek Sinha, {earned oounse§ for respondent No.3. ORDER {gem August, zoos; The foiiowing oyder of me Court was passed by Ra§eev Gtrpta, CJ; This is ciaimants‘ appeai for enhancement of the . Compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribuhai, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 03.12.2003; passed in Ciaim Case No.45/2003. 12) The appeiiants/ ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased i iKutdip i Singh claimed compensation of Rs.12,D0,000I-x by filing a jctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his l death in the motor accident on 12.12.2002, when the Truck on lwhich he was deputed as Conductor/ Cieaner met with an accident 5due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and fell in a ‘Nala’, u resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The lciaiman’zs further pleaded that their son Kuldip Singh was aged about 3O years and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as i Conductorf Cieaner. 3)’ The owner, driver and insurer of the Truck contested the ciaim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the ciatmants. The insurer took the futther piea that the driver of the \ru‘ r 4‘ \ ‘ TEuck was nut hoiding a vaiid driving iécence anci the Truck was befing plied in breach of the policy conditéons. § 4); The claimants examined AW? Teerokaur, AW2 Sarabjeet Sijngh and AW3 Surjeet Singh in support of their claim, whereas iiie tiriver, owner and insurer of the Truck did not examine any witaess in rebuitai. ’5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claimants’ son Kuldip Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.12.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck; as the Truck in question, on the date of the accident, Was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was iiebie to pay compensation to the ‘ t i claimants. o) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Ris.2,500l— per month and Rs.30,GOO/- per annum. By deducting tKSrd of Rs.30,00D/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at iRs2QDOOI- per annumr By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.2@i0001— With the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.t,60,000!—.~_,.\By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/— towards funeral expenses, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Kuldip Singh in the motor accident: The Tribunal further :dtrected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation / W‘ éf Rs.1,62,000f— @ 6% per annum from the date of fHing of the l éiaim petitian tin the date of actuai payment. Wx ?) Shri R. Pradhan and Shr§ Harsh Mahant; ieamed counsel far the appekEants vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in not acicgpting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in asseesing his inceme at Rs.2,5i)0/‘ per menth and Rs.30,0001— per annum oniy; in selecting the iower multipiier bf 8; and in awarding iow compensation of Rsi ,62,000f— oniy. 8) Shri Abhishek Sinha, ieamed counsei for respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company Limiied, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunai has been quite liberai in awarding substantiai amount of Rs.1,62,000f— as compensation to the ciaimants., F) The findings recordedr’oy the Tribunal that the olaimants’ son Kuldip Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him tn the motor accident on 12.12.2002; the accident‘ocourred due to ii rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the Truck; the insurer of lthe- Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have vnow attained finality as the respondents have not fiied any appeai against the award. That apart, these findings are not under chalienge before us in this appeai. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10) The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Kuidip Singh used to earn Rs.4,000J— per month as Conductor! Cleaner. The saiary icertificate issued by the owner of the Truck EXP/6 was produced Ebefore the Tribunal. AW3- Surjeet Singh, the owner of the Truck aisc stated in his statement before the Tribunal that a sum of §R5.3,5DOI- per month was paid as saiary to deceased Kuldip $ Singh. it is further in his evidence that a sum of RsAOOI- per day E was being paid to him as daily aiiowance. 112 in View of ihe evidence of AW—3 Surjeet Singh, the owner of V ‘ the Truck and employer of deceased Kuidip Singh, assessment of ‘ i theiincome of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500i— per I month and Rs.30,000/- per annum is certainiy on the lower side l and requires reconsideration. i2) The daily ailowanoe of Rs.100/— per day, which was being i l ‘ paid by the owner of the Truck to deceased Kuldip Singh was meant for his personal expenses while on tour. in this View of the l i matter, the sum of Rs.100/- per day paid as daiiy aiiowance, l cannot be taken into consideration white assessing the income of the deceased. Since the evidence of AW3 Surieet Singh estabiishes‘the income of the deceased to the ex‘tent of Rs.3;500/— per month, we assess the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/— , per month and Rs.42,000/~ per annumi f3) As deceased Kuldip Singh was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimants are parents of the deceased and after the marriage of the deceased, his contribution to the parents v would have been reduced substantially, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By deducting 50% of Rs.42,000l— towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.2t .000/— per annum. *«x L“;If‘r @ 1f.) Considering that the parents of the deceaéed were shown to be aged about 62 years and 58 years. in the claim petitédn, the H m§ultipiier of 8 se!ected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 1%) By muttiptying the annua! dependency of Rs.21,000!— with t t Tine oiaimants are further entitled to get Rs.5,000!— towards funera! i t e muitiptier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,68,000I—. i i eix‘oenses and Rs.5;0001— towards foes of estate. rThe claimants; thus become entitled to receive a total sum‘ of Rs.1,78,0GO/- as ciompiensatlon to the claimants for the death of their son Kuldip l Sii'ngh in the motor accident, t6) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View ta avoid any possibré dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the nhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the nhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. it?) Considering all the relevant factors inctuding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeai and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rsi16;000/- at Rs.4;OOO!—r 18); For the’foregotng reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants} claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allOwed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,62,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,78,000/- with further quantified ‘x é l i t e G amount 0f interest of Rs.4,000/— on the enhanced amaunt of i Q cémpensation of R31 6;000/-. ’1?) Respondent No.3— the Orienta! lnsurance Company Limited, is‘E granted three months’ time for depositing the iota! sum of RES.20,000/- (Rs.16,000[— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,000l— towards the quantified amount of injtwest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,0DO/—) before the concerning Ciaime Tribunal. 2b) ‘ ‘No order as to costs. // 'e: Sd/- "*"*’” Sunil Kumar Shh? sub-6L1 If ‘ Chief Justice x