HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: - Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Miscellaneous Appeal No.1281/2004 Appellant 1. Rameshwari Bai @ Devkumari Wd/of Ramkumar. Claimant 2. Sanju Verma 5/0 Ramkumar Verma, Aged about -04 years, Roshani S/o Ramkumar, Aged 4 years, Applicant No.2 & 3 respondent by legal guardian Mother Rameshwari Bai, Above all are residence of P.O. Devsundra, Police Station Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) .. Aged 26 years. Versus Lalan Singh S/o Bhuneshwari Singh Through: Ajinder Singh Chawala $lo Dili’p Singh Chawala R/o Sector 1, C 117, Devendra Nagar‘ Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Ajinder Singh Chawala S/o Dilip Singh Chawala, R/o Sector 1. C 117, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Katchari Chowk. Raipur (C.G.) 4. RamBishal Slo Ramcharan Verma, Rio Viiiage Devsundra, Tah-Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Panchvati Bai W/o RamBishal Verma, Rio Village Devsundra, Tah-Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act, 1988) Respondent Non applicant Present: - Shri S. C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for respondents1 & 2. Shri P. Dutta, counsel appears on behalf of Shri Sudhir Agrawaiscounsei for respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25'“ day or November, 2010) a Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. The appellants/daimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.2112004 by the 10‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 23-09-2004. 1. The appellantslclaimants, unfortunate widow and mincr children of deceased-Ram Kumar Verma, tiled a Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15.87.000/- for his death in motor accident, which took place on 03-02-2002. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as Commission Agent of Adarsh Book Publisher, Raipur and Mastermind Books, Raipur and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as commission and he was also earning Rs.25,000/- per annum by agriculture. Thus, he was earning Rs.7,000l- per month. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny ’ of the evidence led by the claimants, held that it was not proved that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal, therefore, resorted to the provisions of notional income and held that the deceased was earning Rs.15,0001- per annum. By deducting Rs.5,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 18 to Rs.1 0,000l-, the compensation was worked dirt to Rs.1,80,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,02,000l-. The Tribunal thus awarded total sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased-Ram Kumar Verma in the motor accident on 03-02-2002. The" Tribunal also awarded interest @9% per annum from the date/of filing the claim petition till realization. \W Shri S. C. Verma, Iearned counsel for the appellants, argued that the l income was not properly assessed by the Tribunal. He submitted that even if the income as pleaded was not held to be' proved by the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased must be eaming Rs.2,000/- per month as a skilied labour in'the year 2002. On the other hand, Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-lnsurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Tribunal. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu. learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 also supported the arguments advanced by Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also i peruse the records of the Claim case. Though the appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Rameshwari Bai, A.W.1 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.4.000l- per month as Commission Agent from Adarsh Publication. Raipur and Mastermind Books, Raipur, but no documentary evidence to this effect was produced. Moreover, alleged income as a Commission Agent cannot be said to be of permanent nature. So far as income from agriculture is concerned, no material was there on record to hold that the deceased was earning that much of amount from the agriculture work. The Tribunal. therefore, has rightly disbelieved the testimony of Rameshwari Bai, A:W.1 regarding income of the deceased and has rightly held that the appellants Could not establish such income of the deceased. The Tribunal has took assistance of the provisions of Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has held that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per annum. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. Looking to the rises of prices of essential commodities and cost of living in between the year 1994 to 2002, the Tribunal ought not have assessed such income of the deceased in the year 2002. Therefore, we do no approve such assessment made by the Tribunal regarding income of the deceased. Even assuming that the deceased would have worked as a Skilled labour, the deceased would have easily earned Rs.2,000/- per month in the year 2002‘ Therefore, we deem it proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000l- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, and re-compute the compensation by holding such income of the deceased. 8. By deducting 11'3“ towards personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.24,000/-. the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.16.000f- per annum. The deceased was aged about 28 years. Her widow was aged about 26 years and there were two children aged about four years. Therefore. we deem it proper to apply the multiplier of 17 in this matter. By applying the multiplier of 17 to the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/—. the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs.15.000/- under other permissible heads, the total compensation works out to Rs.2.87,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,02,000/-. By deducting Rs.2,02,000/-from Rs.2,87,000/-. the difference comes to Rs.85,000/-. The appellants/claimants are thus entitled to receive a sum of Rs.85,000/- more as the enhanced amount 9/\ of compensation for the death of the deceased-Ram Kumar Verma in the motor accident on 03-02-2002. To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the Claimant's appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.8,000/- in this matter. 10. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs,93,000/- more (Rs.85,000/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.8,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which the appellants shall receive from the New lndia Insurance Company. . ‘ The New lndia Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.3 is granted three months time to deposit this amount before the concerned ' Claims Tribunal. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no Tumane orders as to the cost(s). r-~ ' " Sd/— Sd/- a/ [Manindra Mohan Shrivastava’ Sunil Kumar Sinha l ‘ Judge l l . Judge 7 l / Fir r. V” *cr.,r...., i‘ l i,