'§%€% QQEJRT @F CHH£WT§SQARH Q? EHJALSPUR EWESwN LEENQE $Q§§§A§§W 7~§€§N%§_E $HRI RAagEEEi GEFWQ, CJ. {gig $§QW§§LE $§§Rg $LW§L KUMékR $§?\§§*§A g. Miran. §Am3$a3 Rica §W m” 2%2 Nanmcéaimama ChandraKant Dodke aged about 4Q yearS, Hausa N045, Shakarwara {3 0wK Nagpur, Tahsii and Distt. Mamrashira Natianai lmurance Campany Limiied thmugh DM Manager Aakwhgarzga Cm’IpKex, $apeh3 Bhiiaé, DEs‘ct Burg {CG} eafxamai wacky giigaigan “W3 m” twe Mama" VQhiakg Aat, $83 a PrEs.an’t : 8hri Anand Shukia‘ caunsei far i'he appellants. None fer respondent NM. wr Gcuiam Khe rapai, coun$el for respondent No.2. mam gaséifh Mmmi‘yg EMIQ‘ T!me fe‘simving erdar af the Ceurt was pa$sed by “ “‘gev Slam“: SJ. Lama‘ii, Wfe Shaimhan Sirdar, aged ' amam3 abeut 3O years, 2 Pmkash, 8/0 $hatmhan, aged about 12years. Kumari Umeshwari, aged abam 8 years, ba’m mmcr ihraugh guardian Ma‘iher Lezsnati, W/e Smmham AH RIC) Aiiwara. T’nana—Gendatcia Disii. Ragmangam (CG) VEZE$£$ F aaem‘gwig Sm? Chiim DGdks, W/o k? x Thig is daimants’ appeai for enhancement 3f tne ct: ewsatzm aw ded by First Addii‘iona Mom? Accidemts Cia§ms :m 'L. l)\8.: 2} I xv. agamaz 1m, Gemaer‘ga‘mn ear Rs 9 4t) DO s§aimed by the am: l’cn‘z’tvl“ "H a Is unfartumte widaw and mm? shikiren :3? :yeaw Ehcumr‘am by f; «11g a cmim pe’titien undar Section 166 .33 Cf for ms deaw‘ m ir‘g mam? cc§c§ent 0n 2.2 38, m3 Tribanai mwa 3' v miaE sum of p YC éOW- aa n Lima WM" mieres+ @ We raw ammm 1mm the r”&te z Cu” ”mg 0f H2: cwéém gmtié‘iw iii! ha mtg cf w. § pay n nt. a} wri Anam $i1uk£a§ xeamd ceume‘ my wa &ppa§!&nt3 TribunaE mg arr-5235 in not accepting the taimszmg’ 'rs‘vg’iajerzcs; abet; $63 [ma we 0f he decgaagd and in a3aevng hi5; imame at Rs‘1,200/- per month emy; and in awardmg 30w ccmpensation 0f R31 ,?D,2Q0i- only. 4} EShri Goutam Khetrapai, learned counsei for respondent No.2 The N5£ienai mswance Company Limited on the miner hand gunporied the award and contended ihai ihe cemnensation of Rs.1,?0,2Gu/« awareed by iihe Tribune! is just and proper oen’aeensaiion in the facis and eircumetances 0:” i'ne preseni case. £3) As ‘Ehe resgendenis have noi fiied any aepeai against the award, ‘zhe findince reconcied by the Tribunal that deceaaed mat n u z’in died 0 amount of the injuries austatned by him in the v meter accident on 2312 98 aucident eceurred due to rash amt nentrgent driving o the driver 0t the offending vehicle Commander n; Rumandgae (far Sheri ‘t‘ne TrQbunai’) vidg award daied 4:. {£62, passed in Claém Case Ne. 'f4/1g99. C). f0 & m - :xi map; as ihe of?ena‘ing vehide CommaMer Jeep 0n the daie 0f the “tdeit w ingured Wim me National Ensurance Company Limiteid. the insurance Company wa3 HgbiEs t0 pay compensation i0 é c‘mmama have ncw attained finahw ThQt wart the e finding am; mu Linda? chaiiegge bafere us m thiS appsaai. We, therewre‘ £x: m ihe findingS recorded by the TribunaL 6) The daimants pieaded that deceased Shairuhan ussd {:0 eam R3.1,50Qf— pe¥ month a$ %abeur. The Tr§bunaL hawever. S e he Inca we ofi’he dec ased at Re 1 21391— per menth 93 ?)g Ceneidermg the? deceased $ha‘ru‘nen wee aged about 35 year» on the dei ef *he a Cleeni we at e? the opinion the? ihe eeeeasee eeuH h ve easw eareed Re cafe per day by Ncrk mg ae a! uraeidlied 1ebeua We, i‘herefoa'e; pmpeee t9 recompme the weper‘ie cm we g the weome 0f the cieoeeeed at %s.50/; per 1 5G p rnnomn end Rh {800m pe a: mm. :93 S} By cieductmg the usuat 1/3“ 0f Re.18,GDG/~ towams the target“ nypeneee ef the tteceeeed, the ctaimante’ depeneiency is aeeeeeed at Re.t2,QOQ/‘ pet amum. Q) By muittpiying the annue! dependency 0f Re.12,000/- with t. e muttietier of t7, eeteeted by the Tribunal, the sampensation werke wt '20 Re.2.04,0QO/~. Bx: ewe mg fa her eum of Rs.10,000i- tewerde funetat expeneee; tose of eoneemum to the widow; and ioee at eetate; the claimants become emitted to receive a tetal sum ef Re‘2,’l4;QOQ/- as oompensatieh fer the eea‘th 0f deceasee Shatruhan in the meter accident. t l y eéa'y; 1G) Learmd ceunael far the Qartie$ submittad that wii‘h 33 View to §V0id any pcssibie dispute between the parties about tha period fOt which the ciaimants are emitted; t0 receive interest on the enhancad anwunt <3? campmsation, the amount of interegt on the enhamgd wmeant 0t campensatian may be quantified in this appeai itseif. 1’1) Considering aii the reievant factors including the delay in ziteposai at” the claim petition and the present appeal and the tact thet insurance Company alone ts not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of intetest en the henced amount of compensation of Re.43,8GOX— at Rs.?,200/~. t2) Fet the foregoing reasons, the aepeat tited by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation is atioweci in part. The oomeensation of Rs.t,7Q,2OQ/- awarded by the Tribunai is, enhanced to Re.2,t 4,000i— with further quantified amount of intereet ef Re.?,2OD/- en the enhanced amount of compensation of REA-3,8001: t3} Respondent No.2 The National insurance Company Limttect te granted three months’ time for tteeoetttng the totai sum of Rs.St,OOO/— (Rs.43,SOO/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,2GO/~ towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.43,800/—) before the concerning Ciatms Tribunal. subbu t4). No oro‘er as to ooets. )i’rw’i Sd/— im ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Sdl- ,, Judge .t I Chief Justice