mm: COURT OF CHHATTisGARH A ELASPUR DmsgoN BENCH 1 SCRAM: HGN’BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & ' EQN’BLE SHR! RANGNATH GHANDRAKAR, J. Mimi Appeal NoJs4 ot 2964 1. RamgopaiRathore aged 55 years, s/o. Late Kanwa! Prasad. 2“ ’Smt. Hemin Devi aged 5O years, Wis. Ramgopal Rathere. Boi'n r/o. Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Jarijgir—C‘nampa (CG). gggelEams Ap alic‘as { \ i i i ' ésnondents R VERSUS § 1. Ratan Lal aged 6O years,»s/‘o. DP. Nqn—appiicants Agrawal, r/o. Naila, Distt. Janjgir- Champa. Krishna Kumar aged 3O years, sfo‘ Vijayram Bareth, Driver, r/c. Tilai, Tah‘ Janjg‘lr, Distt. Janjgif—Champa. United mdia‘ Insurance Company Ltd., 68 Indira Commercial Complex, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG). m r I r i r l i l Preeent l : Shn , , H.V. . Sharma, counsel r_ fortheappellants. Nene for respondents N031 and 2. Miaeeuaneous Anneai ulS 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Shri Shreekumar Agrawal‘ Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 _ 7, ORDER (12th November, 2019) i The following order of the Court was passed by l ' a Riajeev gupta; CJ. T ni FA \Co The unfortunate parents cf deceased Chhedilal Rathore aye the appeHants beforeus in this appeal far enhancement ef the compensation awarded by the Additional Meier Accident , Claims Tribunal, Janjglr, .District Biiaspur (for short, ‘ihe Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.04.2004, passed in Claim Case NolO8f2003. 2) As against the cgmpensation of Rs.6,0D,DGO/— claimed by the ‘e appellants; claimants, unfertunate parents of deceased 4 Chhedilal Rathore, byxfillng aiolaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 09.01.2003; the Tribunal awarded a total sum Of Rs.t!13,DOD/— as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum in the event of the insurer’s failure to pay the compensation within 30 days of the/passing of the award. ' 3) ' The Tribunal on a close‘scrutiny of the entire evidence led l i before it heid that-the claimants’ son Chhediial Rathore died on e,~~.wa_4..l’w‘ l, . .H. u A A . l l l l l account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on ‘309.01.2003;, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of theoffendlng vehicle Metador bearing fregistratlon No. MP-26D/2876; as the above offending vehicle i Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the United lndia lnsurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company' could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the i insurance Company Was liable to pay compensation tofrthe, claimants. l l l l i l 4) As Ithe respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,QGO/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section l63-A of the Meter Vehicles Act. B); deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000l— towards &. the personal expenses of the deceased; the claimante’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/— per annum, By . multiplying the annual dependency ”of Rs.10,000/- with the i lmultiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to gRs.1,lG,000I—.. By awarding further sum‘iof Rs.3,000f— towards {funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of l Rs.1 i131000f- as compensation to'the claimants for the death of their son Chhediial Rathore in the motor accident. The Tribunal i ‘lfurther directed payment of interest on the above ameunt cf < compensation of Rst ,18;000f- @ 8% per annum in the event of ‘the insurer‘s failure to pay the above amount of compensation a r within 30 days of the passing of the award. i6) Shri H.V. Sharma, learned counsei for the appeilants i tsubmitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the l i ctaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in iassessing his income at Rs.15,000/— per annum’ onty; and ’in awarding tow compensation of Rst ,13,000/— only. l t‘7 i L0___ ) 8m Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with hyi'Anand Kumar Gupta learned counsei for respondent No 3 t e United !ndra Insurance Company Limited on the other hand upported the award and contended that as the claimants courd ot estabheh that the deceased had any regutar income the omoensatlon of RS1 1aOOO/- awarded by the Tribunal is Just nd preper compensation rn the facts and Circumstances of the present case 87) In a mo or accident ctalm case wnat is Imoortant ts that t e oomoensataon to be awarded bv the Courts/Tribunals should be tust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case it shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation nora Bonanza Q) Now we shati examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,tS,OOG/- awarded by the Tnbunai is Just and proper $ompensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1‘03 ‘True, the claimants pteaded‘that their son Chhedilal V kathore used to earn Rs4000I— per month by working in the shop of his elder brother Bajarang, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent EVen the eider brother of the l l deceased in whose shop the deceased was said to be womna was l not examined before the Tribunal ln this state of ewdence re do not find anv fault in the approach of the Tribunai in i l l i l i i v i i ~ie discarding the daimants’ evidence about the income Qfrrthe daceased. 11) Neverthelessi ihe inéome of the debeased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 5,000I- per annum in the year 2003 is certainiy on Ehe‘lower side and requires reconsideration 12) Considering that deceased Chhediiai Rathore was aged about 21 years 0n the dete of the accident, we are of the opinion that K " he couid have easiiy earned , Rs.8G—901— ’ per day even by warking as an unekiiied iabour in the year 2008. We, therefore, ‘ propose to recompute theicompensation taking the income of the ideceased at Rs.2,5OOI— per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. i 13} Considering that deceased Chhediiai Rathore ‘ was gunmarried on the date of the accident and, the ciaimants are ‘ parents or“ the deceased; the deduotion of 50% of the income of i the deceased towards V his persona! expenses would be appropriate in View of the dictum 0t the Apex Court in the case of l Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed ‘ Jameei and another reported in (2909) 2 §upreme Court, $ases 225_ The oiaimants’ dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000[— per annum by deducting 50% of RsSQOOOf- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased. t4). Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, multiplier}? 10 would be appropriate in the present case in View of thedictum of the Apex Court in the case of Monicipa! Corporatton of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman iyer . an anather, reported in (2W3) 8 SSS-L31, wherein it was held ‘th t in those cases where the claimants are parents of the de eased, the muitipiier eheuld never exceed 10. 15 By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.i5,QOOJ— with ih multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to RS1 ,50,0GO;’m. T e claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards fuieral expenses and RSSOOOI— for loss of estate The claimants thus become entitled to reoelve a total sum of Rs.1,6§),ODO/- ae compensation for the death of their son Cltlhedilal Rathore in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to‘avoid any possible dispute between the’vparties about the ‘pe‘ri’od 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 aépeai itself. 17) Considering ail the relevant aspeotsofthe matter including the delav in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance Company aione is not to be biamedtfor the entire detay in the matter, we quantify the amount oft interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of R‘s 47 o00/— at Rs 4 000/- 18) For the foregomg reasons the appeal flied by the apoeltantsf claimants for enhancement of the compensation is lowed in part The compensatton of Rs 1 13 OOOI- awarded by a; i l l i l l ; i thi Tfibunal is enhanced to R31 ,60,000/— with further quantified arTount of interest of Rs.4.000/— on the enhanced amount of compénsation of Rs.4‘7,GOO!—. 1 ) Respondent No.3- the United indie tnSuran'ce Company Li tited is granted three monthe’ time for depositing the total sum o Rs.51,0GO/— (Rs.47,00G/- towards. enhanced amount of oompensatton + Rs.4,000L—\ towards quantified amount of interest oh i the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.47,000l-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. 28) No order as to costs. - iy‘ i i i WW7 Sdl- Chief‘ Justice r,‘... _v _ ,e _’#v,# L ‘