ws^ ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Claimants Misc Appeal (C) No.282 of 2008 1 Phoolo Netam, Wd/o late Sukhram, 38 years 2 Jairam, S/o Late Sukhram, 20 years Both R/o Viliage Pujaripara Matnar, PS Karpavand, Distt Bastar (CG) VERSUS 1 Rajendra Pandey @ Sandeep, S/o Late Madhsudan Pandey, 42 years, R/o Vitl Karpavand, Distt Bastar 2 The Orientat Insurance Co Ltd., through : TheBranch Manager, Main Road, Jagdatpur, Distt Bastar (CG) 3 Anant Ram, 60 years, S/o Late Suna Ram 4 Jaidev, S/o Sukhram, 1 8 years, Res No.3 & 4 R/o Village Pujaripara Matnar, PS Karpavand, Distt Bastar (CG) IVIiscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Praful Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsei for respondent No.2. ORDER (29th June, 2011) ^ ^> 1!l.(£ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,CJ. This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No.61/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,36,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, father and two sons of deceased Sukhram, by filing aclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded atotai sum ofRs.3,64,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on aclose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sukhram died on account of the' injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.12.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of Hero Honda Motorcycie bearing registration Nos.CG-17 J/7579; as the above offending vehicle motorcycle 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 compensation to the claimants. jln;i'^iffa^. ,%^ "% @ 4) As the respondents have not filed ariy appeat against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.52,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,64,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,64,000/-. @ 7.5% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe ciaim petitiontill the date of actuat payment. 6) Shri Praful Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunat haserred in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- only. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the ojfending vehicle motorcyde on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,64,000/-, ^cs^. \a^% ^M.^€/ •^.^^' %. 4 ^' awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record about the income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9) Simiiarly, the claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/-towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 11) Considering that deceased Sukhram was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitipiier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.3,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled ii'.^T"'"^ i/y"% '"^ i. %-%&?, ^ ^:y © to receive a totai sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sukhram in the mbfor accident. 13) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.11,000/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aUowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.1,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.11,000/-. 15) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.11,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.11,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma