HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH AT BELASPUR DIWSEON BENCH CORAM: HSN’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHR! SUNEL KUMAR SINHA, J. 29 Miw. Appeai No.279 of 2%5 Apbeiiams 1 Sm’c Guruwa’ri Bai, W/o Late Hari Claimanis Kishan @ Ramgulal Yadav, ‘a 3G years 2 Ku. Bh'arti, D/o Late Hari kishan, aged 3 Anirudh, Slo late Hari Kishan, ageci about 13 years about 6 years. Prabhakar, S/o late Hari Kishan, aged about 2 years Appeliants No.2 to 4 are minor through natural guardiar; Smt Guruwari Bal, Rio Village Chavlia, PS Bagomuda, Tehsll Kanta Banl‘l, Dislt Balangir (Orlssa) VERSUS Ravindra Kumar S/a Gopal Guiata 2 Subhash Sahel), $/o Vidya Saheb, aged about 25 years Both Rfo Hatkeshar Ward Tehsii & Drst Dhamtari (CG) 3 The Oriental insurance Company Ltd, Behind Amar Ta!k§e$, Dhamtari, Disi Dhamtari (CG) Sfo Virdi Réspmmieni$ N0a-agpeHant3 ged abput Prasad Dhamtari, 4 Prakash Chandra Parakh, Chandra Parakh R/o Mai n Road, ‘ $ambalpur, Dist Kanker (CG) MisaaHaneausAppeai under Samba W3 af Momr Vemcles Act Present : Shri Prafu! Bharat and Shri Vika$ Shrivastava, counseJ far the appellants. Shri Vasim Miya, counsei for respondents NQ.1 and 2; Shri AK Athaiey, oounse§ for respondent No.3. ORDER (94th March, 2am The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by' the Additional Moior Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.10.200§, passed in Claim Case Noi244/2OO4A 2) As against the compensation of Rs.i3,65,GDDI-, claimed by the appellantsfolaimants, unfortunate widow and minor ohitdren of deceased Hari Kishan @ Ramgulal Yadav by filing a claim petitiori under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 07.10.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.09.2063, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rsi ,72,000i- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entlre evidence led before it held that deceased Hari Kishan @ Ramgulal Yadav died on 07.10.2003 on acoount of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.09.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of‘the motorcyclist of the Hero Honda / /\ ’ ‘\\ // / \ r . \ motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-05 M872; as the above cffending vehicle Hero Honda motorcycie on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental lnsurance Company» LEmited, and the lnsurance' Company couid not estabiish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiabie to pay the compensation to the ciaimantsi 4) As the respondents have not ftied any appeat agatnst'the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribune! have now attatned finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muttipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,00D/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/~ towards funerat expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/— as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of deceased Hart Kishan @ Ramgulal Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rst ,72,000/— @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation Within 30 days of the passing of the award. , , / x/i if, \ / ’ \ \ i l C2D 4 6) Shri Praful Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal 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 Rsi ,72,000l- only. 7) Shri AK Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,72,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the‘present case. 8) Shri Vasim Miya, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 9) True the claimants pleaded that deceased Hari Kishan @ Ramguiai Yadav used to earn Rs.200f— per day as boring-machine operator, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the tribdnal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.200/— per day. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/— per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. it) Considering that deceased Hari Kishan @ Ramguial Yadav was aged about 35-36 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70—75/— per day e/ ”T1x gr \ .’\ even by working as unskil!ed labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. 12) By deducting the usuai 1/3” of Rs.24-,OOO/w towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. 13) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their chiidren we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) By multiplying the animal dependency of Rs.‘i 6,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Hari Kishan @ Ramgulal Yadav in the motor accident. 15) Learned oounset for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid'any possfble 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 of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay 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 detay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest /’\’ ‘ §\ //"/ \ \ on the enhanced amouni of compensation of Rs.83,000/— at RS.9,DOO/—. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal 'filed by the appellants/ oiaimants for enhancement of the compensation is attowed in part The compensation of Rs.1,72,000f—awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/— on the enhanced amoont of compensation of Re.83,000/—. 18) Respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three monthshtime for depositing the total sum of Rs.92,00D/- (Rs.83,0DO/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 19) No order as to costs. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/— hief Justice Judge C