^gss^ ^^^•^;^^^?^:^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 205 of 2006 Appellants Claimants 1 Smt Neera Bai, Wd/o Sukhdas, Baghel aged about 28 years 2 Ku. Archana D/o Sukhdas Baghel, aged about 09 years 3 Indarchand, S/o Sukhdas Baghel, aged about 7 yeara t 4 Chabiial, S/o Sukhdas Baghel, aged about 5 years Appellant No.2 -4 through their legal guardian appellant No.1. All r/o Satnami Para, Kumhari, The & Distt Durg (CG) VERSUS Respondents Sardar Sukhvinder Singh Bhan Vehicle Owner, R/o Station Road, Raipur (CG) The Orientat Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Offlce - Malviya Nagar, Durg (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal u/S 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, counse! for respondent No.2. ORDER ;th (06mJanuary,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 Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated i.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.27/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow an'd minor children of deceased Sukhdas Baghel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 31:10.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,13,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sukhdas Baghel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31.10.1998; the accident occyrred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MP23/DA-1662; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day; Rs.2,250/- per month; and Rs.27,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.27,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,06,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,13,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhdas Baghel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tlll the date of actual pavment. 6) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal tias erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.75/- per day only; in awarding only Rs.7,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.3,13,000/-only. .s 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counset for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,13,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sukhdas Baghel used to eam Rs.100/- per day as Hamat/Coolie, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal had no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 9) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.75/- per day: Rs.2,250/- per month; and Rs.27,000/- per annum. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3fd of Rs.27,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 11) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fauljt with in view of the fact that deceased Sukhdas Baghel was aged about30 years and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus De!hi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. 12) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly falten into en-or in not awarding any sum towards loss of estate and in awarding only Rs.2,000/- towards funerat expenses. In our opinion, the ctaimants are entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards loss ofestate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. 13) The appellants are further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards interest on the above enhanced amount of Rs.8,000/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons,- the appea! filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is atlowed in part. The appellants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component.on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15) Respondent No.2 the Orientat tnsurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totat sum of Rs.10,000/- before the conceming Ctaims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangaath Chandrakar Judge subbu