} } x i $C§R§M Smt. Amaeiiants ia§mant$ Shabnam Enamuihaque, age 23 years, Miner AH of R/O Kharsia, distt. Raigarh CG. VER$US Mohammad ishaq Khan S/o-Alisaiam Khan, cccupation Truck Driver, Parbeen wie Khatun d/o Rahisa Enamuihaque, age 2 years, Minor imran Khan S/o Enamuihaque, age 2 years. Minor lrfhan Khan S/o Enamuihaque, through his neturai Guardian mother Shabnam Parbeen wlo Namuihaque. Dead Mohammad Abbas s/ Mohammad Rustam, age 7O years, Dead Azijan Khatun W!o Mohammad Abbas, age 6O years. Respondents Truck No. B.R.-2-o/7$86, R/o 77, Mehtajpur, Allahabad (UP) Mohammad Khokhragagarh, District Gadwa (Bihar) Truck Owner. ‘ , Manager, New india insurance Co. Gaya {Bihar} New india insurance Co. Office Sa‘itigudi Chowk, Raigarh (MR) Now (Chhattisgarh) M iceiianeous AD ea! uiS- 173 of-the Motor vehicie Act 1988 - Tazuddih‘ s/ Mohammad Nizamuddin, R/o Vinage Parsahi, P.O. i 'T r i i i i i i l i i i M“”mamnmmma ‘ i i i %\, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LA$PUR EEUiSiON BENCH HQN’§E.;E SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON’BLE $HRH RANGNATH QHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. gppeai No, 26$ of 23M- G o \ o , E e ' Present : Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsei forthe ' appellants. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned ceunsel‘for respondent No.2. Shrl Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel l with Shri Anand Gupia, learned counsel for l respondent No.3. (16m November, 2(310) n a w b The following order of the Court as passed y geev Gupte. J. Ra C § Ths i' C'lalmts’ aeal for enncemen of the i e an pp hat cmpenion awarded by the hird Additional Motot Accident osat T Cls T Rg e d aim ribunal, alarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vid awar date 2908.203, passed in Claim Case No.42 of 2002. d .0 ' gait th pensation or“ Rs.33,80,000/- clime by: 7) As ans e com ad th / cls, en d e ‘appella‘nts aimant unfortunate widow, minor ohlidr an parente o decas Enulhaue, by filing a cim etiton f eed amq la pi under Sectn 166 o the Motor Vehicles Act, r his deat the ‘ io f fo h in motor aident on 06.0.1997, the Tribunal awaded a ttal su of e.3,0,QOO/— as ompentio iong with interest @ 9% annum from 01 .01 .2003 till the date of actual payment. l 3) The Tribunai on a oiose scrutiny ofthe entire evidence led before it held that deoeaaed Enamulhaque died on account of the i irtt’uries sustained bf'him in the'motor accident on 06.07.1997; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ’Truck bearing registration l l w mm GREER cc 7 r o m i R6 csan a per l l i l .l ‘ Ne.B.R.O2—Gi7886; as the above offending vehicie Truck on the date of the accident was insured with ihe New India Insurance ¢ , Company Limited and the thsurance Cempany coutd not i 1 establish any breach of the poticy conditions, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have hot filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now u . attained finality. : 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/— per menth, By deducting 11’3” of Rs.2,500!- tewards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1i666!- per month and Rsit 9,99% per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.19,992/— with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was. warked out to Rsl3,5g,856/—. By awarding further sum. of Rs.5,000/— under other heads, the compensation was worked out to Rsi3,64,856/-. The Tribunal by rounding off the above amount to Rs.3,60,000/- awarded the same as compensation to the oiaimants for the death of deceased Enamulhaque in the motor j accident. The Tribunal further directedpayment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,60,0QO/- @ 9% per annum from 01 .01 r2003 tili the date of actual payment. Ei)‘ Shri Amit Shatma, learned counsel for~the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in rounding off Rs3i64i856/3 the amount of compensation assessed by the a . I I f i awarded by the Tnbuna! rs just and prooer compensation 1n the - fads and mrcumstances of the present case. I ~ Tiribunal to Rs.3;60,000/- oniy; in awarding only Rs‘5,000/- under I other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- einiy. éhn Anand Gupta iearned counsel for respondent No 3 the New inelra insurance Company Lrmrted on the other hand supported qn‘e award and contended that the compensatton of Rs 3 6G 000/- i q) $hri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with I ’ t >8) Shri Dharmeeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mohammad Tazuddin, the owner of the Eff-ending vehiete Truck also supported the awards 9) Considering the evidence available on record about the income of the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in the asseesrnent of the income of the deceased by the Tribunat at Rs 2 SOOI- per month. Similarly, the olaimants’ dependency-also has been rightlv assessed by the Tribunal at Rel 666/4 per month and Rs 19 992I— per annum by deductingthe usual 1/3” of the income of the deoeased towards hie personal expenses. The muitiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is the highest muitiplier prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163—A of the wotor Vehioies Act. 1m 10) The Tribunal oertainly'has falien into error in awarding only Rs.5.0GU/- under other heads and in reducing the amount of i Rs.3,64,856/— asses5ed as compemation to Rs.3,60,000/'- under the cover of roundmg off. W 11) In our opinion, further award of Rs.25,00Q/— inclusive 0f interest component on the enhanced amount of campensation would make the compensation of Rs.3,60,QOQf— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facie and circumstances of the present caee‘ . ‘u 12) The appe‘ai fiied by the appellants! ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is aiiowed in part The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.25,000/~ inclusive ' of ioierest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.3,60,0QOf- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3‘the New india lnsurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum ‘ - of Rs.25,0DO/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 1 4) No order as to costs. ‘ subbu