HIGH COURT OF CIEIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cora : Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 85 m Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Misc. Appeal No.73 of 2006 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. Smt. Suita Mehar, aged about 25 years, W/o Late Maheshwar Kumar 2. Ankalha Mehar, S/o Paltan Mshar, aged about 48 yéars. 3; Pusai Mehar, W/o Ankalha Mehar, aged about 46 years. A11 R/o Village- Bhatgaon, Post— Khorpa, Police Station- Abhanpur,District—Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS Non-Claimants 1. Vasudev, S/o Salma Satnami, aged about 48 years, R/o Boriya ' Road Near Sabjl Market Santosm Nagar Ralpur, Dlstrlct- Ralpur (CG) 2. Shankar Ishrani through Nidhi Provision Stores, Ashwini Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur 3‘ The New India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Office, Divisional Manager, G.E. Road, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: , Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants/ Claim ants. None for respondents 1 & 2. Shm Sudhu‘ Agrawal and Shrl Prasannayt Dutta counsel for v )‘espondent No 3/Insurance Company ORAL- ORDER (18.01.2011) Following order of the Court was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 21 /2003 by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal F.T.C.), Raipur Vide award date 25.10.2005. ( d 2. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and~parents of deceased—Maheshwar Kumar ‘Mehar, fed a claim petition under il Section 166 of te Motor Vehicles Ac, 1988 (in short “the Act of h t 1988”), claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,0/-/- for his death 00 in the moor acciden, which took'place on 3.3.2004. Deceased — t t Maheshwar Kumar was aged about 26 years. he T appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs; 100/— per day b woring s a Mason. y k a 3. The learned laims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of he‘evidence C t led before it, held that the deceased was earning Rs.60/— per day. Taking that he must be getting work for about 25 days in a month, his income was assessed as Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs. 12,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 18 to the said dependency of Rs.12,000/—,the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,l6,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.18,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,34,000/- as compensation to the appellants for the death of deceased — Maheshwar Kumar in the motor accident on 3.3.2004. The Tribunal also directed that if the said'amount is not paid Within one month from the date of passing of the award, the award amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Claimants, argued that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed, therefore, the Tribunal fell into error by awarding low compensation to the appellants. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri Prasannajit Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claim case. 7. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.IOO/- per day by working as Mason, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, by appreciating entire facts and circumstances, held that the deceased was earning Rs.60/— per day. By assuming that he \ @ >must be getting work for 25 days, in a month, the Tribunal finally held that the deceased must be earning Rs.1500/— per month. The deceased was a skilled labour. In our View, a skilled 1aobur could have easily earned at least Rs.80/— per day in the year 2004. We, therefore, do not approve finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was, earning Rs.60/ — per day. Instead, we hold that the deceased must be getting Rs.80/— per day. By taking that he must be getting work for 25 days in a month, the income of the deceased thus is assessed as Rs.2000/— per month and Rs;24,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to re—compute theyfcompensation by holding the annual income of the deceased as Rs.24,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3fd towards personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.24,000/—, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.16,000/— per annum. The appellant No.1 is widow and the reaming two appellants are the parents of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased and the age of the widow as also his parents, we deem it appropriate to apply multiplier of 17 in this matter in View of the dictum of Sarla Verma (SmtJ and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotheri12009) 6 SCC 121}. By applying multiplier of 17 to the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/v, the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs.15,000/— under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.2,87,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded x @ Rs.2,34,000/—. By deducting Rs.2,34,000/— from Rs. 2,87,000/—, the difference comes to Rs.53,000 / -, which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased -Maheshear Kumar in the motor accident which took place on 3.3.2004. 8. To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the claim petition as also the claimants’ appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.53,000/—, which we quantify as Rs.5,000/— in this matter. 9. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.58,000/— more (Rs.53,000/— as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the. amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which they shall receive from respondent No.3/New India Insurance Company Ltd. 10. Respondent No,3/New India Insurance Company Ltd. is granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount with the con‘cerned Claims Tribunal. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to the cost(s). Sd/- Praveen Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Maninclra Mohan Shrivastava Judge