CGRAM: HQGH SOUR? G? CHHA‘fTtSGARH QT gtiASPUR ENI$ION BENEkQ i-EGWELE SHRI RAJEEV GEEPTA,‘ CJ. & ELE sHR: sgNll VIIMAD e‘ mun Misc Aanegi E€o. 7% 0% 2&3? j Anpeiams L l'\UIVEHF\ GEIVI IH, U- I Smt Janki Bai, Widow 0f iate Pardesi D“am, aged abau‘ & 28 years . Kumari Jeetu, daughter of iate Paidem .‘u A: Ram, aycu «an! awut IAA {- a Q years, (Mmor Through her natural guardian mather 'Smt Jank: Bai AppeHant No.1 ishwari Ram Patel, aged about 55 'y'Eai'S Sm: Ram Kunwar, Wife of i$hwar§ Ram aged nl. gusut -. 50 m .ears An residents of Viilage — Mchrenga Tehsi: — Kurud, Bistrict — Dhamtari (CG) Vefsus Parasram Sahu, son of Sukuram Sang, Em aged a out .& '37 4, yefa, h resident of vinage — Eabha, presentry residing at ViHage - Rankadeen, Poiice Station — Magarm, D§str§ct — Dhamtarr‘ (CG) Bishatram Sanu, son of Gehtram Sahu, resident of Vittage — Rakadeeh, Tehsii — Kurud, F"a£u‘a& uiauim — Dr k18mm“ £nu1 \VG; If‘ ‘ The New indie insurance Company Ltd”. Divisionai Office 1-Ihannai' M". bi..- Uiiamuci, is.“ new IAUWei “it; i IGusc, .. .. Bhiiai: District — Durg (CG) Respondenis /(' Q} Fresent : Agceei under Section 173 of the Motor Vehtcie Aet SSmt indira Tripathi, counsei for the appeliants. §Grlueru$ A e AHU.I o: A. la40") @j Shri Prashant JayaswaL Senior Counse! with Shri Ajay & k a ¢ I I Mishra, counse: far :espcndem nkw I insurance Combanv. ,7 . . r . . . ,r._,_~=_4.,_., _A Grtjer {Qand \ A Uul’, lulu ongm 5V V} The fonawing order of the Court was passed by Rai&ev Gama. C.J. This is ciaimants’ appeaa far enhancement of the campensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Acckient Ciaims Tnbunal (for short, ‘ihe Tribunai’): Dhamtari, District — Raipur, vide award dated 03.07.2062, passed in Claim Case No.2l2002. 2) The ciaimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased — Pardesi Ram, oiaimed compensatron of ‘RSJ329000l- for his death in the motor accident, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicie — Matador hearing registration No‘MF’ 23 DA 8340, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The claimants further pieaded that deceased — Pardesi Ram used to earn Rs.200/- per day by seli‘ing vegetaioies and as a . k y, carpenter. 3) The driver: owner and insurer of the offending vehicle — Metador contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the piea that the deceased himself was responsibie for the accident. The insurer of the matador took the piea that driver of the offending vehicle — Metador was not holding a vaiid driving license and the matador was being piied in breach of the policy conditions. 4) The claimants examined AWN — Janki Bai 8: A'iiiil2 - Vishram in support of their case, whereas, the driver, owner and r insumr of me offending vehicie — Metador did net examine any witness in rebuttai. 5) The Tribuna! on a dose scrutiny of ihe evidence ied befare it heid that deceased -— Pardesi Ram died on account 9f the ‘ injufies susfained by him in the motor accident on 08.05.2001; the ascident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle iMe‘Eedor; as the offending vehicie — Matador V . on the date of the accident was insured with New india insurance Company Limited, the insurance Cemoany was iiabie to pay compensa‘aion to the ciairnants. 6) The Tribune! assessed {he income of the deceased at Rs.1,30Ci— per month. By deducting a sum of Re.4(JG/- towards pereonai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.QOC/- per month and. Rs.1U,8G0/- per annum. By muitipiying the annuai deoendency of RemisDDJ- with the muttipiier oi 10, the compensation was worked out to Ref! {OSDGOIn By awarding further sum of Rs.1G,GGG/- under other permissibie heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ot’ Rs.1,18,000/— as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased -— Pardesi Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further dtrected payment \ of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rst ,18,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of fittng of the ctaim petition tiii the date of actuet payment. 7) Smt indira Tripathi, teamed counsei for the appeiiants submitted that the Tripunai has erred in not accepting the ciaimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessng hs ncome a? R.1,30f)l— per ma ony; seeci‘ng i i i s mh i m it ltin 0: t iower muiiar of 1 and in awaming iow compensaion of 3D ly Rsn ,1GGI- on. 8) Shri Prasnt Jayaswa, iearne Sem‘or Counsei far ha a d {esponden No. — Insurance Company on he oher han t 3 t t d upported the award and contended ha he compensaion of s tt t t Rs.11GGO/- awarded by the Tribunai is us and ptoper .8. jt compensation in the facs and circumsances of he presen case. t t t t Q) s te respondens have not feci any appeai agains the award, th‘e findings recorded by he Trbunai that eceased —- Pardesi Ram died on account of e njures susaned by m in the th ii ti hi moor accden; he accident occurred ue o r and negligent t it t d t ash driving of he driver of the offending veice — Metador; and the t hl nsure of e maaor was iiaoe o pay compensation to the ir th td ii t caimants, have now attained finaiity. Tat apar, ese findings are i i h t th tot under chaiiende before us in this appeai. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribune! in that behaii. 10) The ciairnants pleaded that deceased - Pardesi Ram used to earn RséCOI- per day by seiiing vegetables and working as a carpenter. True. the evidence led by the ciaimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunai in discarding the ciaimants" evidence about the income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the Tribunai in the event of discarding the ciaimantsi evidence about the income of the deceased, ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the notionai A h t ii t t i d @, mcome prescribed in the Secona $cheduie unde: Section 163—A of ihe Motor Vehicies Act 11,) The noiienai income of Rs.1§,GOQ/— in ths Second Scheduie under Seciion 163-A of me Mate: Vehésies Act wa$ nrescribed in the year 1Q94. The accid€nt m the present case wherein deceased - Pardesi Ram iest his We took piece in the year 266?. €f the Encreaee in ihe pncee of essentiei cemmedities and the V ‘cost ef living during the peried "between 1994 and 20m is taKen inie consideiaiion. the notionai inceme of ‘Rs‘15,GOD/— prescribed in the Secena Scheduie in the yeat 1‘9Q4 would some to RSEOEGOL in the year 2Ut31. We, therefore: preposete re—cempute the cemnensation by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,0t’30/— per annum. By deducting W3 cf Re.3G,OOOf— towards personal exeenses of the deceased, the ciaiments" dependency is assessed at Rs.20.0001— per ennum. i2) Deceased - Pardesi Ram was 32' yeats of age on the date cf the accident; Whereas his Widow — Janki Bat was shown to be 28 yeai’s of age in the ciaim petition. in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case ct New indie Aesuranee Company Limited Vs Kaieana and others reported in 2m}? ACJ 325, we are of the ooinion that muitipiier of 1'3 woutd be appropriate in the present case. i3) By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.2G:GDD/- with the muitiptier of 13: the compensation works out to /i Rs.2.6fJ,GGGI-. The ciaimants are further entitied to get Rs'c'SDGGI- towards funerai expenses; RSSDQOI— for toss of estate and 0‘; @ RsSBCGl— for 'losss' of consomum to the widaw. The claimants, thus become eniitiedxo receive a totai sum o? R5.2,75,0GDI— as compensatisn for the death 0f decea3ed — Pat’des‘g Ram in the meter accident. 14) The ctaéman‘ts shati also be emitted t0 get interest @ hanced amount of compeaeation of 5% pet annum on the en Ref; ,87,DCGI— from the date of flung of the claim pet: of actual payment.’ “‘5') 'Forthe forego’mg reasoh appet‘tants for enhancement of tton titi the date e: the appeal ftied "oy the the compensation is atiowed in part. The compensation of Re.1,18,0G0/- awarded by the Tnbunat is enhanced to Rs.2,75,99(3l— with further direction of payment of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation (g2 6% per e of tiiing of the ciaim petition tiii the date of annurn from the dat actual payment. 15') Respondent No. '3 — insurance Company ts granted ced amount of st due thereon before three months’ time for depositing the enhan compensation aiong with the amount of intere the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. i7) No order as to costs./ ,;, We? Sd/_ M . Sdl— . \ CHIEF JUSTICE ‘ pad ma