HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appellant/ Claimant Respondents MAC No. 709 OF 2007 Devkaran Kurre S/o Rangu Satnami, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Khuteri, PS Mandir Hasaud, at present R/o Village Kanharpuri, Police Station, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (CG). Versys 1. Ramchandra Varma S/o Jagdish Prasad Varma, aged about 40 years, R/o Kandrapara, Arang, PS Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG). 2. Hora Chopra, S/o Bhanwar Lal Chopra, aged about 32 years, Chopra Transport, before LIC Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Madina Building, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri CR Sahu, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. .^<? ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1st day ofApril, 2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 03.08.2006, passed by the Itnd Additional Motor Accid^nt Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'Tribunal') in claim case No. 184/05. The brief facts of the case are as under: i. On 17.04.2005, the appellant was sitting as a pillion rider in motorcycle No. CG 04 Z 5683 with his nephew Basant Kurre and was going to village Khuteri, near village Lakholi on National Highway No. 6, the-/ 1 offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 06A/6830 coming from Mandir Hasaud dashed the appellant's vehicle as a result of which Basant Kurre died on account of injuries sustained in the said accident. The matter was reported in the Police Station Mandir Hasaud. A case was registered for an offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304 (a) of IPC against the driver of the offending Truck. ii. The appellant filed an application claiming Rs. 3,50,000/-as compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident against the respondents. iii. The Tribunal, on a close scrutlny of evidence led, material placed, and submissions made by the parties, held the respondent No. 1 i.e. Driver of the offending Truck responsible for the said accident; accessed the appellant permanent disability to the extent of 60 percent; assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36000/- per annum; deducted 50 percent of it towards personal expenses of the appellant; looking to the age of the appellant as 55 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 10, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,QQO/- on account of loss of income and also awarded Rs. 30,000/-on account of medical expenses, thus awarded total sum of Rs. 1,38,000/-alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment against the respondents. The only submission made^by Shri CR Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Tribunat has erred in deducting 50 percent of the monthly income while computing the compensation, and therefore, amount of award deserves to be enhanced. Per contra, Shri Neeraj Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/insurance company would contend that, 8. the amountof compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just & reasonable and deserves to be upheld. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, based on appreciation of evidence, held that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Truck; assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum, the respondent No. 3 is responsible for its payment to the appeltanfclaimant; the appellant in the said accident has permanently disabled to the extent of 60 percent; looking to the age of the appellant at the time of accident, multiplier applicable in the case would be 10. The aforesaid findings were not substantially disputed by the respondents nor insurance company preferred any appeal in this regard, thus had attained finality. The Tribunal, after deducting 50 percent of monthly income of the appellant towards his personal expenses, assessed monthly loss as Rs. 1500/- per month i.e. Rs. 18,000/- per year. Looking to the age of the appellant applied multiplier of 10 and thus assessed the loss of income to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000/, assessed permanent disability to the extent of 60 percent and thereby assessed the yearly loss of income to the extent of 60 percent of Rs. 1,80,000/- i.e. 1,08,000/-, by adding Rs. 30,000/- on other Heads, the Tribunal has assessed and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,38,000/- to the appellant. - 9. In case of injury; the personal expenses of deceased is not deductible therefore, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50 percent of income towards personal expenses of the appellant. Therefore, 1 propose to re compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the income of the appellant as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 10. By taking into consideration Rs. 36,000/- income of the appellant, and by applying multiplier of 10 as applied by the Tribunal, the amount would come to Rs. 3,60,000/-. Since the disability was to the extent of 60 percent, the amount of compensation would be 60 percent of aforesaid amount i.e. 2,16,000/- by adding Rs. 30,000/- on other Heads as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation work out to Rs. 2,46,000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled for further sum of Rs. 1,08,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 12. Considering all the relevant factors, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, 1 quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- at Rs. 7000/-. ,^ 'fes ^^ ^^^ s yy 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,46,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 7000/- on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,08,000/-. 14. The respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company is granted 3 months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-(Rs. 1,08,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 7000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. __ ___^^ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sahu