-.-4 's^: HIGH COURTOF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A. iC} No. 1444 of2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Girish Banchor and others Versus Mafik Ram and others. ORDER ForPronouncement of Order ^ ^ .04.201 1 Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Jydge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeai (0 No.1444of2008 APPELLANTS : APPLICANTS - .--Jv -w" RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Girish Banchor, aged 50 yrs, S/o Shri " Bharat Singh. 2. Abhishek Banchor, aged 25 yrs, S/o Shri Girish Banchor. 3. Mohnish Banchor, aged 21 yrs. S/o Shri Girish Banchor. All r/o : Near Mama-Bhacha Talab, Tikarapara, Dist. BilaspurCG. VERSUS 1. Malik Ram, s/o Shri Budhram.r/o : c/o Smt. Gopika Jaiswal, Bangalipara, Gali - 4, Distt-Bilaspur CG 2. Smt. Gopika Jaiswal,W/o R.A, Jaiswai, r/o Bangalipara, Gali-4, Distt-Bilaspur CG 3. The New India Insurance Co. Limited Through : The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Limited : Divisionai Office, Rajiv Plaza, Bus- Stant, Bilaspur CG. 4. Mohd. Ramzan, aged 45 yrs, s/o Mohd. Jainuddin, r/o Near State Bank of India, Sarkanda, BilaspurCG 5. The OrientaE Insurance Company Ltd. Through: the Divisionai IVIanager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited : Divisionaf Office, Near High Court, BilaspurCG. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE 3VIOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsei for the appeilants. Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.5. None for other respondents. ORDER (Passed on c^ .04.2011 ) This is daimant's appeal. Not being satisfied by the amount of compensation of Rs.14,91,716/- awarded by the 1st Additional IVIotor ^'L~ Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim case No.01/2008. the ciaimants preferred this instant appea! for enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.42,54,000/- sought by the appeilants/claimants by filing daim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act for the for the death of Smt. Kanti Banchor in the motor accident on 25.07.2007.the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed on record and submissions made by respective parties, heEd that due to collision between bus bearing No. C.G.10/A 6856 (for short 'theoffending vehicEe'), the Jeep bearing No.C.G.10 ZD 5416 (for short 'the Jeep) Smt. Kantl Banchor who was traveliing in the Jeep has died and for thisthe driver of offending vehide was held responsibie; as the said offending vehicle wasinsured with the New India insurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company was aiso iiable to pay compensation amount and awarded Rs.14,91,716/-as total compensation for the death of Smt. Kanti Banchor in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the respondents No.1 to 3to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally, aiong v/ith interest at 6% p.m. from fhe date of fliing of ciaim petition till the realization of amount. 3. As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the impugned order, the findings recprded by the Tribunai have now attained finality. 4. Being aggrieved bythe impugned award, the appellants preferred this appeal for enhancement. 5. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appeliants mainiy submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has, while assessing the compensation, erred in ignoring tota! gross income of the deceased. He piaced reliance in the matter of Nationa! Insurance Co. Lfcf. v. Indira Srivastava &0rs., ASR 2008 SC 845 in support of his argument. 6. On the other hand, Shri A.K.Athaley and Shri Sandeep Shrivastava, jearned counsel for the insurers argued in support of the impugned award. 7. Having heard rival submissions, 1 have perused the impugned award including record ofthe Tribunai. In the present case, the appeliants are husband and sons of the deceased. The deceased Smt Kanti •^'\ Banchor was working as Head Master and as on the date of incident she was holding the position of Head Master posted at Government Middie Scool. Kathakoni. Document Ex.P.7 has been filed by the appeliants in order to prove that the deceased was getting Rs.14.665/- after deducting Rs.1400/- towards G.P.G. and Rs.20/-. Ex.P.8 is register and photocopy of the same is Ex.P.8-C. Considering the evidence of the appeliant and the documents available on record, the Tribunal held that prior to date of accident, the deceased was working as Head Master in Govt. MIddle School, Kathakoni and Ex.P.8-C is pay bill for the month of June, 2007 whereas Ex.P.7 is last pay certificate, according to which, she was getting total salary of Rs.15,354/-, outof which, Rs.1000/- has been deducted towards G.P.F. and Rs.150/- towards G.I.S. Based on Ex.P.7 the Tribunai thought it fit to assess the income of the deceased and accordingiy the Tribunal has, in assessing the compensation, taken the net pay i.e. Rs.14,204/- and ignored in inciuding the amount of Rs.1000/- deducted towards G.P.F. andRs.150/- deducted towards G.l.S. and fixed annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,70,448/-. The Tribunal, thereafter, deducted one-third from the above amount of Rs.1,70,448/- and worked out the dependency ofthe appellants at Rs.1,13,632/-. The Tribunai while holding that as on date of accident the deceased was 47 years and based on the2"d Schedule to Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehides Act, applied muitipiier of 13 and ultimately worked out the dependency of the appellants at Rs.14,77,216/-. By adding Rs.14,500/- under other permissible heads, totai compensatlon of Rs.14,9.1,716.00 wasworked out by the Tribunal for the death of Smt. Kanti Banchor in the motor accident. 1 am of the considered opinion that the assessment worked out by the Tribunal in calculating the compensation is not proper. The Tribunal ought to have considered the deductions of Rs.1150/-. In the matter ofNational fnsurance C. Ltd. v. Inclira Srivastava & Ors. the Supreme Court has held that the amounts which were required to be paid to the deceased by his empioyer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthiyincome as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefits. 8. Accordingly, in the light of above dictum, I propose to re-compute the compensation by taking monthly income of the deceased as •.!!'--^^ A^%N. Rs.15,354/- which includes G.P.F. and G.I.S. Rest of the contents i.e. one-third towards personal expenses, multiplier of 13 used by the Tribunal and the .amounts awarded under other permissible heads shal! remain unaltered. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses from Rs.15,354/-, sum of Rs.10,236/- and Rs.1,22,832/- per annum would come and ifthe amount of Rs.1,22,832/- is multiplied with the muttipiierof 13, then a sum of Rs.15,96,816/- would come as the amount of total dependency of the appeilants. The Tribunal worked out the total dependency at Rs.14,77,216/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.14,77,216 from the totai dependencyof Rs.15,96,816/-, then difference comestoRs.1,19,600/-. 9 . Considering all the relevant factors Including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeais as also the fact that the insurance company alone is not to be blamed for the deiay in disposa! of the matter, 1 quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,19,600/- as Rs.10,000/-. Thus.the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a further sumof Rs.1,29,600/- as enhanced amount of compensation, inaddition to Rs.14.91,716/-as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. !n view of what has been stated above, the appeal fited by the appellants/ctaimants for enhancement is, therefore, allowed in part. The respondent No.3 - The New India insurance Company Limited shalt deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,29,600/- En the concerned Claims Tribunal within a period of 3 months. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge