i T HIGA BISR DNISION BENCH Appeilants Ciaimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Anneal No.462 of 2003 ' CORAM: , HON’ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,‘C.J. HON’BLE sHRIsUNIL VKuMAR sINHA, Smt Ramautin Bai, Widow of late Jailal Mandavi, aged 4O years Radhe Shyam Slo late Jailal Mandavi, aged 16 years Ku. Vandana D/o late Jailai Mandavi, aged 3 years Ku. Rashmi D/o late Jaiial Mandavi, aged 14 years Smt Ful Kunvar Bai, Widow of Itwari Ram (Since deceased) The LRs are already on record as: applicant Nos. 1 to 4. Applicant N032 to 4 minors through : Applicant No.1 Smt Ramautin Bar l resident of village Bagodar Teh. Kanker, Distt Kanker (CG) VERSUS Om Prakash @ PrakaSh Yadav S/o Gurudayal, resident of reZarpur, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar (CG) Balaram S/o Prabharam, aged 42; years, resident‘df near Khalsa School ‘ Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur Distt‘BLastar (CG) The Oriental Isurance Co. Ltd; Branch Office Sadar Bazar, JagdalputuDivl Ofdce KutcheryChowk, Raipur (CG) y Al n f @ s Misc. A neai under $ection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 .. .. Present : ShriSushiiSahu,counselon behalf of Shri Prafui Bharat, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shrl Sudhlr Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. OREER (-5“ Augpd 9919) was a_ s .I ‘s ‘ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. _ This ‘is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘t'he Tribunal’) vide award dated 13.09.2002, passed in Claim Case No.304/2002. 2) . As against the compensation of Rs.20,50,000/—, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Jailal Mandavi by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,30,000i- as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Jaiial Mandavi died on account of the injuries sustained by_.him in the motor accident on 13.04.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of i ‘ ww the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MP-25-BIC)551; as the offending vehicie Truck on ihe date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company $ Limited, the Insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeat against the award: the above findings recorded bv the Tribunal have now attained finality. r ‘Sf The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,500!- per month. By deducting Rs.2,500/- towards personal expenses of‘ the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.6,000 /— per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.?2,000/- with the muitipiier of 1C), the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,20,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permissibie heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.?,30,000/- ass compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jailal Mandavi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.7,30:()06l- @ 8.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Sushii Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behaif of Shri Prafui Bharat, counsel for the appeilants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the gross income of Rs.8,8131— as the income of thedeceased and in assessing his income at i i @ Rs.8,SOD/- per month oniy; in selecting the lower multiplier of 1G; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.7,30,CGG/— only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawai and Shl'i P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.7,30,000/— as compensation to the claimants. 8) Deceased Jailai Mandavi was working as Naib Tahsildar. ‘His salary certificate (EXP/1) reveals that he was getting gross salary of Rs.Rs.8,813l-. The Tribunal certainly has fallen into error in assessing the income of the deceased at a lower figure of RSBSOOI— per month. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,813l— per month and Rsi ,05,756/- per annum. 9) By deducting the usual 1/3'd of Rs.1,05,7.56l- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.70,504/— per annum. 1G) Deceased Jailai Mandavi was 45-46 years of age on the date of the accident as has been stated by his widow AWN Smt Ramautin Bai in her evidence before the Tribunal. Multiplier of 13. therefore, would be appropriate in the present case in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6‘Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multipiier of 13 has been prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years. 11) By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.70,5D4/— with the muitiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.9,16,552/-. By adding further sum of Rs.5,00G/— towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss of‘consortium to the widow and RSSDDOI- for ioss of estate, the ciaimants become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.9,31 ,552l-. 12) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants 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 appeai itself. 13) Considering all the reievant factors inctuding the‘detav in disposai of the ciaim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we. quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,01,552]— at Rs.1 8,448/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is .ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.7,30,C)00/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to R3931 ,552I- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.18,448f— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,01 ,552/—. 15) Respondent’No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months‘ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.2,20,DOO/- (Rs.2,G1,552I- towards enhanced amount of l l l l