HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! T.P. SHARMA, J. MISCELLANEQUSAPPEAl, No,734 of 2003 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS 1: Smt. Ramabai, wife of tate Shri Rajendra Dswangan, aged about 32years, 2. Kumari Gauri Bai, daughter of tate Rajendra Dewangan, aged about 14years. 3. Kumari Meena Bai, daughter of iate Rajendra Dewangan, aged about 12 yeare. 4. Ganesh Ram Dewan^an, son of late Rajendra Dewan§an, aged about10years. Appellants No. 2 to 4 are minor, through natural guardian, mother Smt. Ramabai, wife of late Shri Rajendra Dewangan, all residents of Village - Pakariya, Pofce Station- Shivrinarayan, Distrtet- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) Versus 1. Bisahu Ram Chauhan, son of Gend Singh, aged about 27 years, resident of Village-Bhadaura, Poiice Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2. Bhupendra Singh, sonof Manohar Singh, aged abcut 37 years, (Sikh), resident of Gali Number-3, Imllpara, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur,-<C.G.) 3. Nationai tnsurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager. Branch Office B-1, Taha iComplex, Ring Road, Pnyadarshani Nagar, Biiaspur, Tehsil j and Distriet- Biiaspur, (C.G.) ^ ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR ; VEHJCLESACT. -— w.tei Wliiwr'illl ^WItWlli .,'sss J 11 •sn; Present: Shri PK Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appetlants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (8th December, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is ctaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribynal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award t^ted 02.05.2003, *>. passed in Claim Case No. 77/2002. 2. The ctaimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Rajendra Dewangan clajmed compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- by filing claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 24.03.2000, when the truck bearing registration No.MP26 B 3435 in which he was working as a porter met with an accident and over turned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resutting in the instantaneous death of Rajendra Dewangan at the spot itseif. The claimants further pieaded that deceased Rajendra Dewangan was aged about 35 years and used tqeam Rs.4,500/- per month as porter and weaver. 3. The owner, driver, and insurer of the truekcontested the-claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took the further plea that offending vehicle tnjck was bejng plied in bi^ch otthe policyconditions and thedriver of the truck was -/ not holding a valid drlving ticenGe. liinHillll7!!1!' ,,«£^ la». F <i!SE1 'w s "sy ^s-SSnff^ ^a-: 'fliI'Kr"i ^' 4. The claimants examined AW-1 Ramabai and AW-2 Shiv Kumar Shrivas and AW-3 Premlal Dewangan in support of their claim whereas the owner of the truck examined NAW -1 Bhupendra Singh, in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Rajendra Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehteletruck on the date of the accident was insured with the National in^urance Company x Limited, the Insurance Company was liable tp pay compensation to the claimants. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rt of Rs.1,000/- towards his personai expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.667/- per month. By multiplying the annual dependency with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,36,668/- which was rounded of to Rs.1,36,000/-. By awarcting further sum of Rs.24,500/- under other heads,the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,500/- as compensation to theclaimants for the death of cieceased Rajendra Dewangan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amoujit of compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, tilt the date otactual payment. 7. Shrj.,PK Tuteyan, learned counsel for the appeltante submitted -/ tbat the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the lclaimants' evidence TW^ awr i!|n;jl.i l^i^infttL'i about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation QfRs.1,60,500/-only. 8. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, The National Insurance Company Limited on the other hahd supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal thal deceased Rajendra Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck; and the insurer of the truck was liable topay compensation totheclaimants havenow attained finaiityas the respondents have nof fiied any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beycyid any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal. True, the ctaimants pleaded that deceased Rajendra Dewangan used to earn Rs.4,500/- per monthas porter on the truck and as weaver, but the evidence led bythe claimants in that behalfwas not of cjinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Trib'unal in discarding the claimants' evide.nce about the income of the deceased. ' 11. Nevertheless, the incomeof the deceaseid assessed by the Tribunat gt-Rs.l ,OQO/- per month is certainly on the lower side: The Tribunat whife discarding the claimants' evidence |about the income of the deceased, ought to have'assessed the income of the deceased on ?l@^^@Ba|BfiaaniBnuBus|!iSA-.r.r,,,i. ^] ^.;?'?^ss^^r' ;^Ta l-.i' the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedute under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodlties and the cost of living between 1994, and the year 2000, the year of accident in the present case, is taken into account, the notionat income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed inthe year 1994 would come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- \, per annum. 12. By deducting usual 1/3 of Rs.30,000/- towards the persona! expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 13. Considering that deceased Rajendra Dewangan was 35 years of age on the date of the accident whereas his widow Smt Ramabai was 32 years of age at the time of filing of the ciaim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate by the ApexCourt, where the age ofthe deceased was 33 years. 14. By multiplylng the annual dependency otRs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/. The claimants are Turther entitted to get Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expense&,-«Rs.5,QQO/-towards loss of consortium to the widow; and -/ Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to ..'-^Si ,.',.--^.^a, ^.s^ii j, '''s;^^^!s' ,-? £ ''?-; ^:^ petima receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajendra Dewangan in the motor accident. 15. Learned counsel for the partiessubmitted that to avoid any possible dispute about the period for which the claimants are entitled to get interest on the enTianced amount ofcompensation, the amount of interest may be quantified in this appeal ftselT. 16. Considering all the relevant factors including the defay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed forthe detay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on theenl^anced amount of l>. compensation of Rs.1,14,500/- at Rs.35,500/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation Is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,60,500/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interesf of Rs.35,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensatton. 18. Respondent No.S/Natfonal InsuranceCompany Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,14,500/- towards enhanced amountof compensation + Rs.35,500/- towards the quantifled amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the conceming Claims Tribunat. ' . s •_ 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justicei, •-". Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge (aiW-B