HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR D!‘.’!$!0N BENCH HONELE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J MA. No. 3§7i2003 ppeiiants 1. Smt Prabhabai W/o Kamiesh Kumar CEaimants aged about25 years 2. Ku Padmini Dfo KamleshKumar $ahu Aged about 3 years Tushar Kumar S/o Kamlesh Kumar Sahuaged about%year * Kamdav Sahu. Sio Late Samaru Saru Aged abouf 59 years 5 Vimia Bai W/o Kamdav Sahu Aged abaut 55 years Appeiiant No.2 and 3 are represented here by iegal guardian Mother Prabhabai, All are R/o Kusmi, P$ Berla, Distt Durg(CG) ' Versus Resnondents 1. Harbeer Singh S/o ’Budha Singh Non-appiicants Panjabi R/G H — 16, Rajiv- Nagar! Sankar Nagar, Raipur PS Mova Distt RaEpur(CG) \ 2 Amit Sharma, Sio Rajkumar Sharma, R/o H-16, Rajiv Nagar, Sankar Nagar, Raipur PS Mova Distt Raipur (CG) 3 United India insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisiona! Manager, Kutcnhery Chowk, Raipur (CG) Misc. Anpeai undér Section 1% of the Motor Vehicies Act Present : Shri Aditya Khare, counsei forthe appellants. Ms Morisha Chhatri, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. A Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. {12m March, 2919) The foilowing order of he Court was passed by t Rev Gt CJ. aie une. his is claimnts’ appea! for . enhancemen of the T a t V" compensation awarded by h Sixth Addiional Motor Acciden te t t Claims Tribai, Raipur, (for short ‘he Tribun’) vide award dated un t ai a 15.3.203, assed in Ciaim Case No.125/2DO2. 00 p 2) As agains the compensaion of Rs.10,12,000/- ciaimed by t t the appeiiantsiciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiidren and parens of decease Kamiesh umar Sau, by fiiing a ciaim t d K h peiion under Section 163-A of the Moor Vehicies Ac, for his tt t t death in he motor accident on 17.6.2002, the Tribunal awarded t 0 a cai sum cf Rs.‘i,§3,.UOD/— as compensaion aiong with interes @ tt t t 9% per annum from he date of tiiin of the claim peition iii’ he t g t t t dt pav ae of actuai ment. The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the enire evidence led 3i t before it heid hat deceased Kamiesh Kuma Sahu die on 18.66.2602 on account of the injuries susained by him in the motor accident on 17.06.200 the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of th driver of the offending vehicie Truck; as the offendi vehicie Truck on he date of he accident was insured nd t t with the United india insurance Company Limite, he insurance d t Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. Order t r d t e 2: 4') The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000f— per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Re.15,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 0,000I- per annum. By mutt’rpiying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000!— with the muttiptier of 18, the ‘ compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000l-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribune! awarded a total sum of Rs.1,QE,GOO/— as compensation to the iciaimants for the death of deceased Kamiesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rat ,93,00G/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in‘not accepting the claimants evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/— per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rst ,93,0GO/-only. 6) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counset for respondent No3 The United lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,Q3,GOO/'- awarded by the Tribunai is just. and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Ms Morish‘a Chhatri, iearned counsei for respondents No.1 & 2 aiso supported the award. 8) As the respondents have not Wed any appeai against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Kamiesh Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.06.2062,: the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending ivehicie Truck; and the insurer of the Truck was iiabie to pay compensation to the ciairnants have now attained tinaiity. .ux 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,93:G00/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper a ' compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Kamlesh Kumar Sahu used to earn RsRs.6,000I— per monthvas Mason, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discardind the claimants’ evidence about the dincome of the deceased. 1t) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,00Dl- per annum is certainly en the lower side and requires re-consideration. 12} Considering that deceased Kamlesh Kumar Sahu was aged about 28 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs‘60-70f— per day in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,GDOI-‘per month and Rs.24,GOO/'- per annum. 13) - By deducting the usual U3“ of Rs.24,000/— towands the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.1 6,0GO/- per annum. 14) As deceased Kamlesh Kumar Sahu was aged about 28 years! appropriate muttiptier in the present case would be 17 in View of the recent dictum 9f the Apex Court in the case’of Saria Vern‘na (Smt) and Others Vs Dethi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2609') $ Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein muitipiier of 17 was prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rsl 6,0DO/- with the muitipiier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2:72,0GOI-. The claimants are further entitled to receiVe Rs.5000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,600f- for loss of consortium to the widow and RSEDOOX— for ioss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,87,000l— as compensation for the death of deceased Kamlesh Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount cf compensation’may be quantified in this appeai itself. 17) Considering ail the relevant factors including the deiay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire l deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of intei'est on the enhanced amouni of compensation of Rs.Q4,GOOI- at Rs.7,00DI-. 18) Foa’ the foregoing reasons, the appea! fiied by the appeiiants/ ciaima‘nts for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part/V The compensation of Rs.1,93,000/~ awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,87,0GG/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.?,OOD/— on the ’enhanced amount of compensation of V o ‘Rs.94.00G/-. 1g) Respondent No.3 The United india Insurance Company . Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of ‘Rs.1,01,000/- (Rs.94,000/—towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/-) before the concernind Ciaims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sdl— Chief Justice i i r i padma