^•^w^^t s^^^^^&'si^s^s'^s^l^^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bleShri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.{C)No.172of2007 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Krishna Kumar Soni and others. Versus Mant Ram and others. O RDE R For Pronouncement of Order ') .03.2011 Sd/- R-L.Jhanwar Judge ^^^^^^^^te^ij^^^%s^^^^^^^^^s^^^^®tis^^^^%^l^%^;:^^1^% APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.172 of 2007 1. : Krishna Kumar Soni, S/o Jeewadhan Prasad Soni, Aged about 44. 2. : Dropati Bai, W/o Krishna Kumar Soni, aged about43yrs. 3. : Ku. Damayanti, D/o Krishna Kumar Soni, aged about 18 yrs. 4. : Ku. Kavita, D/o Krishna Kumar Soni, aged about 16yrs. 5. : Ku. Kshama, D/o Krishna Kumar Sonj, aged about14yrs. Appellant No.4 & 5 are represented by legal guardian father Krishna kumar Soni. Ali resident of Aida, P.0. Tulsi, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mant Ram @ Ballu, S/o Dhani Ram, R/o Vili. & P.0. Mohara, P.S. Sohela, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Om Prakash Agrawal, S/o Kishan Lal Agrawai, R/'o Viil. & P.0. Newara (Gandhi Chowk), Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New india Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisionai Manager, Divisional OfRce No.1., The New !ndia Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaii Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1994 Aopearance: Shri S.C.Verma, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Shaiiendra Sharma for respondent No.3. None for respondents No.1 & 2. RESPONDENTS NON-APPLSCANTS ORDER (Passedon \\ .03.2011) This is ciaimant's appeal. Not being satisfied by the amount of compensation of Rs.1,93.700/- awarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Claim case No.87/2005, the claimants preferred this instant appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- sought by the appellants/claimants by filing ctaim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Dagesh Soni in the motor accident on 28.06.2005 at about 11.30 p.m., the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed on record and submissions made by respective parties, held that the death of deceased Dagesh Soni took place as a resu!t of rash and negligent driving of driver of truck bearing C.G. 05 ZC 0318 (for short 'the offending truck'); as the said offending truck was insured with the Nsw India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company was also liable to pay compensation amount. 3. As the respondents have not filed any appea! against the impugned award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now atteined finality. 4. Although there was no exact svidence as to age ofthe deceased, the Tribunal considering the autopsy report Ex.P.9 determined the age of the deceased at 18 years. Similarly, since there was no proper evidence to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal inter alia holding fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1800/-; deducted one-third amount therefrom towards personal expenses and worked out annualdependency of the appeliant/claimants at Rs.14,400/-. Thereafter, the Tribunai, taking into account the age of the appellants No.1 & 2 as 44 and 43 years and based on 2nd Schedule to Section 163A ofthe M.V.Act, applied multiplier of 13 on the annua! dependency of Rs.14.400/- and then worked out to Rs.1,87.200/- towards total dependency of the appellants. The Tribuna! further held that although appellants No.3 to 5, being sisters of the deceased, are not dependents, but considering the demand made by appeliant No.1 that appellants No.3 to 5, being sisters of the deceased, are also entitled, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to award them aiso. By adding a sum of Rs.6,500/- under other permissible heads, the Tribuna! worked out fotal compensation of Rs.1,93.700/-, which the claimants were entitied to receive for the death of Dagesh Soni in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed the respondents to pay the compensation of amount so awarded jointly and severally with payment of ?!!"'^^R@as!y ®^Egg^^w»I?%' intsrest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the reaiization of amount. 5. Shri S.C.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Ciaims Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation despite there being sufficient evidence adduced on behalf of the ciaimants/appellants regarding income of the deceased. On this premise, he urged that compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Sharma for the insurance company argued that the Tribunal has, after appreciation of evidence availabie on record, awarded sufficient compensation to fhe ciaimants and the impugned award is sustainabie under law and thus cails no interference. 7. Admittedly, the deceased died in the motor accident, as is evident from pleadings and evidence of the appeliants. !t is also clear that the deceased was young lad of 18 years as on the date of incident. Aithough there was no clinching evidence regarding exact income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1800/- per month. In the present case, the accident has taken piace in the year 2005. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are taken into consideration, the appellants/claimants should have been properly compensated by taking the income of the deceased notionally. The approach of the Tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased is not proper. !n catena of cases, this Court, considering the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year of accident, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- taking into consideration notional income and also facts and circumstances of that particutar case. In the present case, accident has taken place in the year 2005 and if the increase in the prices of essential commodities, steep fall in the money value and the fact and in the cireumstances of the present case are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the second schedule in the year 1994 would certainiy come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2005. Accordingly this Court proposed to re- compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. In this case, since appeliants No.1 & 2 are parents of the deceased, therefore, 1 am of the considered view that deduction should one-half. Accordingly, the annual dependency would cometoRs.18,000,'-. 8. Coming now to the question of multiplier of 13 app!ied by the Tribunal, appeliant No.1 was aged 44 years whereas appellant No.2 was 43 years as on the date of flling of claim petition. The Tribunal has rightty taken the age of the mother and father of the deceased for computing the compensation and based on 2 Schedule to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act has also rightly applied multiplier of 13. l am of the view that multiplier of 13 used by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the amount would come to Rs.2,34,000/-. By adding Rs.6,500/- on the amount of Rs.2,34,000/-, the total compensation would be worked out to Rs.2,40,500/-. 9. The Tribuna! has awarded a sum of Rs.1,93,700/-, therefore, the claimants wouid get Rs.46,800/- more. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal ofthe claim petition and the present appeals as aiso the fact that the owner alone is not to be blamed for the delay in disposal of the matter, I quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.46,800/- at Rs.3200/-. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,93,700/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.50000/-. The claimants are entitled to receive Rs.50000/- more, in addition to compensation of Rs.1,93,700/- as awarded by the Tribunal, for the death of deceased Dagesh Soni in the motor accident. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the appea! filed by the appellants/ciaimants is, therefore, allowed in part. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.50000/- in the concerned Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 months. Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge