HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSlS^RH. BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (ONo.882 of 2009 "dJ APPELLi^NT/; (Claimarlt) RESPOrllbENTS: Taklesh, S/o Jhumuk Lal Sahu aged about 33 years, (Mental Disturb) thr-ough His Wife Smt. Hemlata, Taklesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, bistt. Dhamtari (C.6.) Versus 1. Reedram S/o Dharati Ram Yadav Through Ishwer Chand S/o Loonkar'an, By Caste Solchha, R/o Meenpara, Shikshak Nagar Durg Distt. Durg (C.6.) 2. Ishwer Chand S/o Loonkaran, By Caste Golchha, R/o Meenpara, Shikshak Nagar Durg, Distt. Durg (C.6.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Malviya Nagar Durg, through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {AAisc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988} Presenti A^r.Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant. [r. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.l & 2. Mr. A.K. Athley, counsel forrespondent No.3. &ivision! Bench; - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma & H^n'bieiA^r. R^L. Jhanwar. JJ ! ORAL OR&ER (23-10-Z009) 1. Althpugh this is an admitted appeal and it is listed in the motion hearing list, parties are ready andwilling to argue the case finally. With the conspnt of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Thislis an appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for shor-t the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.09.2008, passed in Claim Case No.544/2004, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant along with interest © 67o per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- claimed by the unfortunate claimant/ injured, by filing a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-2-2004, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- as compensation to the appellant, along with interest © 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. .4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation to the appellant and has not considered the income of the appellant who is permanently disabled for his job and thereby committed illegality. During the course of arguments.learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in absence of any clinching evidence relating to income of the appellant, notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the Tr'ibunal, but the Tribunal has not done so. Learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal has assessed 50/o of the income of the claimant towards his loss of earning capacity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents suppbrted the impugned award and submitted that after evaluating the evidence available on record, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the appellant warranting any interference in the appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Tribunal. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we have examined theevidence availabie on record. The evidence adduced on behalf of the parties reveals that the appellant sustained serious injuries resulting in permanent disabil.ity up to 90% on account of the accident occurred on 12-2-2004. Driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and responsible ..i^!a3et!'s. j .^^-"^'/ for the accident. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.2,400/- per month and after deducting 50% of Rs.2,400/-, it has assessed Rs.1,200/- per month towards future loss of income. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards special diet, transportation <& assistance; Rs.7,000/- towards loss of income during treatment; and Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- on all heads. By taking the future loss of income of Rs.1,200/- per month, the Tribunal .assessed the annual futureloss of income at Rs.14,400/-. By multiplying the annual future loss of income of Rs.14.400/- with the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal has awaryed Rs.2,16,000/- towards future loss of income. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total sum of Rs.3,56,000/- as compensation to the appellant/ claimant along with interest © 67o per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. 8. The accident in the present case occurred in the year 2004. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the 2 schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the year 1994. Considering the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and cost of living, the notional income of the appellant requires-to be recomputed. Accordingly, by presuming the notiqnal income of the appellant in the year 2004 at Rs.3,000/- per month, the annual notional income would come to Rs.36,000/-. By deducting 50% of his notional annual income of Rs.36,000/-, future loss of income of the appellant would be Rs.18,000/- per year. By multiplying the future loss of income of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. After- deducting the compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal towards future loss df income, the enhanced amount of compensation would come to Rs.54,000/-. . 9. In order to avoid future dispute regarding payment of compensation and considering all the relevant factors of the case and the fact that the accident in the present case took place in the year 2004, we are of the opinibn that quantified amount of interest of Rs.16,000/- would be proper on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.54,000/-. />-', r'-'? ;: %1•i. s 1'p '^ lO.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is partly allowed. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to the extent indicated above. Respondent No.3 is directed to pay enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.54,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.16,000/- towards quantified amount of interest) to the appellant within three months from today. No order as to costs, Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.E. Jhanwar Judge