IN THEHIGHCC)UI^QR3VQI(D EIRE^BILi^PUI^fC.{3^.^ r •^ M.A. No. APRELLANT CLAIMENTS RESPONDENTS ./2005 /('}' Smt. Kanti Bai, Wd/o Arjui-t Gcind'., Wd/QAEjun,(3ondfAged^abouts25yrs..^ Ku. Babli, D/oAi-iunGdnci. ,''Aged,3bQj.it:'fcyr.'^ • '.; .'.. • Santu^GQhd,: S/o Jhangalu Gond^ Aged abQyf45yFS. ^^^ r Subhiya @ai,W/o Santu Gond . Aged about ^3 yrs, All R/o vilBge.Udela ,-BiGhhiya, Districfc-Mandla.CM.P.)," .^•-Sai'itoshrNagar/P.S.-Tikai-apar'a, RaiRyr ^&DisEt. Raipur(C.G.) ' , ,' ,Versus ^Ranri'Kpmar, S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Through ' iRaijaram'Fripathy, M.M.P. Pvt. Ltd. ?^ffiK,,Golony, Kondagaon, Disfrjct .^ .|,Baspif(c.g.) ; . ^ 2^.:;,aR i'" 1~riRathy, M.H.l:f..Pyt. l-Ed. i@.IK|.K.,'C;olQny, Kondagaon, Distnet ^Bastar"(c,g.) : ;| ^Jhe. ©riehtalInsurancej Co. Ltd, Through -DiyisiQnal Manager, DiyisionN®.2,Sai «NagaR ; : ,,'°.,,.' ::•>' ,,^..L: . :@evei'iclf'a:Nagap,Raipur^Teih&Distfict:- ^ipi.it-^C.©.^-::'.,:;'';.'::,-,,;:••: ^islSllllrMis^^plIalgiMUiiB^ HIOH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <.. ffW APPELLNT RESPOKDENTS M.A. No. 1209 OF 2005 Smt. Kantibai aad others Versus Ramkumar and others SINGLE BENCH:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Slui Adilya Khare, Advocate, for appeUaats. Ku. Dipa Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondeat No. 2. Shri Varunendra Mishra, Adv, fbr fhe lespondent No. 3. ORAL QRDER (2-2-2010) 1. This is claunants' appeal seeMng enhancement of compensation awarded by the 10tb Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipiir vide its award dated 7th July, 2005 in Clatm. Case No. 76/2004 whereby and whereunder as against the amoiint ofRs. 5,43,400/- clatmed, the claimants have been awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date ofapplication tUl its payment. 2. Claiaiants are unfortunate wtfe, child, fafher and m.other of deceased Arjzin Gond, who died in accident dated 9-1-2003. 3. The claimants preferred an application under Sectioa 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Glaiming compensation against the driver, owner and uisurer ofthe otfendingvehicle. 4. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutmy of the evidence adduced and on appreciation of the material placed on record as&essed notional incoiae offhe deceased at 15,( per anni^m. After dedneting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses, dependeney has been assessed 4t Ks- 10,000/- per annum. By applying miiltipller' of 18, leamed Tribunal has assessed Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation on account of loss of dependency. By awardmgfurfheT sum|ofRs. 22,000/- under other heads. the Tribunal awarded a fotal sum ofRs. li^^^-.s^^a 2,02,000/- as coiapensation to fhe claimants for fhe deafh of deceased Argun Gond in fhe niotor accident. Tribunal has further awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application. 5. Shri Aditya Khare, leamed counsel for fhe appeUants would submit fhat leamed Tribunal ought to have assessed fhe notional tncome as Rs. 30,000/- per inontih and fhe award deserves to be enhanced. 6. Per contra, leamed counsel appearir^ for fhe respondents would submit that miiltiplier applied by leamed Tribunal is on higher side and fhere is not scope for enhancement in the awarded amount. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and perused the record as also the unpugned award. 8. The Tribunal assessed notional income of fhe deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. As per Hnd Schedule of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the notional income fixcd by the Statute is Rs. 15,000/- per aimum. The IIndSchedule was brought into the Statute book w.e.f. 14-11-1994. Considering the cost ofllving and tncrease in the price index tn fhe year 2003, the income of the deceased assessed by fhe Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per aruium on fhe basis of notional income is certainly on the lower side and requlres reconsideration and Rs. 30,000/- per annnm'as notional income would be appropriate in fhe facts and circuiastaaces of the case. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in M.A.(C) No. 761/2007 (Smt. Puni Bal and others -v- Snat. Manjushri and others) decided on 11-9-2009. By deductmg l/3rd of it towards personal expenses in the facts and circimistances of the case, appropriate multiplicand would be Rs. 20,000/- per annum. By applying the miiltiplier of 17, as fhe deceased was age^l 30 years, the amount woiild come to Rs. 3,40,000/- towards loss of dependency.By adding Rs. 15,000/- towai|-ds other heads, the total aniount for which fhe claim.ants are entitled comes ..^ %.. ^ ^. to Rs. 3,55,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,02,000/-, therefore, the claimaats are entifled for a further suni of Rs. 1,53,000/- as coiapensation. 9. Leamed counsel for the parties submitted fhat with a view to avoid any possible dispute betiyeen the parties about the period for which the clatmants are entitled to receive interest on fhe enhanced amoiint of compensation, the amoiiat oftnterest on'the enhanced amount of compensation may be quanti&ed tn fhis appeal itsetf. The accident in the present case wheretn deceased Aijun Qond lost hls life took place ui the year 2003; fhe claim petition was preferred in the year 2004; fhe impugned award caiae to be passed tn fhe year 2005, fhe present appeal was filed by fhe appellants/clatm.ants for enhancement of the compensation in fhe year 2005, and the appeal is betng finally decided m the year 2010. Considering aU the relevant factors includmg the delay in disposal of the claim petition and fhe present appeal and the fact that the owner alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay tn the matter, we quaatify fhe amount of interest-on the enhanced ajm.ountofRs. 1,53,000/- atRs. 15,000/-. 11 . For fhe foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeUants/claimants for enhanceiaent of the compensation is atlowed in part. The coiapensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,55,000/- with further quantified ajnount of interest of Rs. 15,000/- on the enhancedamountofRs. 1,53,000/-. 12 . The;"appellant is granted 3 monfhs' time for depositinj the total siun of Rs. 1,68,000/- (Rs. 1,53,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. lp,000/- towards quantified amoi-int of tnterest on the enhanced amoimt of compensation) before the conceming clalms Tribunal. 13; No order as to costs. Sd/- • N.K.Agrawal Judge