n' f ii •;^r? "Y v;"s: ^ .^ J'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J hflisc Appeal (C) No.234 of 2010 Claimants 4 Smt Urwashi Bai, wd/o Rajwa Chandrakar, aged about 24 years Kumardhan, s/o Late Rajwa Chandrakar, aged about 01 years Ghasiram, s/o Late Rajwa Chandrakar, aged about 48 years Smt Mongra Bai, w/o Ghasiram Chandrakar, aged about 44 years Appellant No.2 minor represented through mother Smt Urwashi Bai Ail R/o village Bansapur, Poiice Chowki, Khandsara, Police Station & Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG) Chaitram son of Chhote Lal Yadav, aged about 45 years, r/o Pandariya, Ditrict Kabirdham, (CG) Driver Bhikhamchand, s/o Bidhmal Jain, aged about 60 years, r/o Bazar Chowk, Police Station & Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) Owner The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Manjil, First Fioor, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (CG) Miscelianeous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act MACNo. 234 of 2010 ^ VI .. Present : Shri AL Singraul; counsel for the appellants. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for respondent No.3. th 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (i^wardha) (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No.70/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,50,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate wldow and minor son and parents of deceased Rajwa Chandrakar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.08.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,07,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of 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 Rajwa Chandrakar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2008; the deceased who was driving the Motorcycle at the time of the accident and the driver of the other vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04 G/9093 equally contributed to theaccident; •uj L'JWJk^w.^-<L3^lwltf^^i* ^ut^-M-^3^£A'^±£JySC MACNo. 234 of 2010 rc^ as the above Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tri.bunaS to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/-' per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deductsng 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.55,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the totat compensation at Rs.4,15,000/-. As the driver of the Truck was held liable by the Tribunal to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the Truck was directed to pay 50% of Rs.4,15,000/- i.e. Rs.2,07,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajwa Chandrakar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- @ 7% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Rajwa Chandrakar also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- onty, ;^^%S^§g^ia^ieg5^3n MACNo. 234 of 2010 <Z°7 6) Shri Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No.3; the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of contributory negligence wherein the deceased himself contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; and the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- to the claimants. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the deceased motorcyclist and the driver of the truck equally contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% each is concerned, we gather from paras 8 and 9 of the impugned award that the above finding is based on the claimants' evidence itself. It has come in the evidence of the claimants that the accident occurred when deceased Rajwa Chandrakar who was drivingthe motorcycle at the time of the accident was overtaking the truck. The claimants examined AW-2 Dev Sharan Yadav as an eyewitness of the unfortunate accident. !t is apparent from the evidence of AW-2 Dev Sharan Yadav that at the time of the accident three persons werte travelling on the motorcycle i.e. deceased Rajwa Chandrakar, who was driving the motorcycle, this witness Dev Sharan Yadav and one Soni. It has come in the evidence of this witness that when the deceased was trying to overtake the truck the accident occurred resulting in the death of deceased Rajwa Chandrakar on the spot itself. 8) On a thorough scrutiny of the evidence of AW-2 Dev Sharan Yadav and the fact that the accident occurred when the deceased t ?\ •V^^VE3-S^»^--^ 5 MACNo. 234 of 2010 e~l'D was trying to overtake the truck, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly hetd that the deceased himself also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal holding it to be a case of contdbutory negligence wherein the deceased himself aiso contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As the claimants did not adduce any cogent and clinching evidence about the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day as Mason, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month; and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as it was only ciaimant No.1 Smt. Urwashi Bai, the widow of the deceased and ciaimant No.2 Kumardhan, minor son of the deceased who was actually dependent on the income of the deceased. Claimant No.3 Ghasiram is father of the deceased, aged about 48 years and must be having his own independent source of income. Claimant No.4 Smt. Mongra Bai being wife of claimant No.3 Ghasiram is primarily dependent on her husband Ghasiram. - vss WIACNo. 234 of 2010 ^ '<•• 12) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on fhe lower side and requires reconsideration. Deceased Rajwa Chandrakar was shown to be 24 years of age in his postmortem report. His widow Smt. Urwashi Bai was also 24 years of age on the date of the accident and their minor son Kumardhan was aged one year only. Inour opinion, the multiplier of 18 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the 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 multiplier of 18 has been prescribed for the age group between 21 -25 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the muitiplier of 18, the compensation works ouf to Rs.4,32,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The total compensation, thus, works out to Rs.4,47,000/-. As the driver of the truck has been hetd liable for the accident to the extent of 50% only, the claimants are entitled to receive 50% of Rs.4,47,000/- i.e. Rs.2,23,500/- as compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the truck. 14) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation isallowed in part. While maintaining the finding of contributory negligence recorded MACNo. 234 of 2010 by the Tribunal, the compensation of Rs.2,07,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.16,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.16,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judse padma