, .s'!cpai•tltt ' '-: > HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. *). M.A No.476 of 2003 Appellant Clajmants WWWSssttassstasH.i 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Safri Bai W/o Late Jaimangal Kunwar Age 32 years. Minor Rath Bai D/o Late Jaimangat age 13years. Minor Ku. Rukmani Bai D/o Late Jaimangal age 10 yeare. Minor Ku. Sukhmani Jaimangal age 8 years. D/o Late Respondents Non-apDlicants Minor Chamru S/o Late Jaimangal age 3 years. Minor Ku. Nawdha D/o Late Jaimangal age 1 years. No.2 to 6 guardian mother Safn Bai All residenbts of vitlage Kalmi P.0. Dhanagar Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) versus 1. Saheblal alias Guddu S/o Shri Nathu Ram Kunwar age'25 years, resident of village - Kalmi P.0. Dhanagar Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Dilip Patel, S/o Shri Jashubhai Patel, resident of Kevta Para Raigarii Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Orientat Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch OfRce, Itwari Bazar Raigarh Tah. & Dlstt. Raigarh (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of the M. V. Act Present : Appellants by Shri G.K.Berhwal with Shri C.J.K.Rao. Ng one appears for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3,, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11 March, 2008) i^—'T^^ <^a!ifc HSS •::..y'-^ / Being aggrieved by the award dated 01.10.2002 passed in claims case No. 38/2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby in case of death of Jaimangal, aged 40 years, by applying multiplier of 12 a sum of Rs.1,74.000/- as compensation was awarded, the appellants/claimante have filed this appeal for enhancement. lifilBUa' 2. Since in this appeal the insurance company does not dispute its liability to pay compensation and has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award and the only question involved in this appeal is the quantum of compensation upon an applfeation of a proper multiplier to the loss of yearly dependency, the appeal is, therefore, being heard finally at this stage without notice to respondents No.1 & 2. BitjitJBMI 3. Learned counsei for the appellante submitted that the age of deceased Jaimangal was assessed at 40 by the Tribunal, and therefore, according to the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, ttie proper muttiplier applicable is 16. tt was furttier urged that the reasoning of the Tribunal for not awarding any amount towards ftineral expenses is perverse. No ottier ground was urged. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.S/insurance company urged that the second schedute to Section 163A of the Motor Vehteles Act is to be used as a guideline and not as a mathematical formula. On these premises, it was urged on facts that multiptier of 13 woutd be applicable. Reliance was placed on Tamll Nadu State Transport Corporation Ud., v. S. Rajs^ya and othws, AIR 2005 SC 2985, Rameslf Slngh & Anr. v. Sattslr Slngh Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 1238 and New liwiia Assuivnce Co. Ltd. v. Smt Kalpana & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 1316. So far as the award of funeral expenses is concerned, the prayer was not opposed. 5. Having 'considered rival submissions, 1 have pemsed the case law cited by the learned <;ounsel for the insurance company. The deceased in the present case was aged 38 years, according to the post mortem report while the claimant-widow admitted that the deceased 2-\ was aged 40 years. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightty assessed Uie age ofthe deceased at 40 yeare. |i^ i};t^. i^ 6. Taking the aid of the second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, conskfering the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the case law cited t»ythe learned counsel for the insurer, 1 am of the considered opinion that multiplier 16 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged only 40 yeare at the time of accident and would have continued to eam at least for another 20 years. Besides the claimant-widow, the other claimante were 5 minor children and had the accident not occurred, tte 5 minor children of the deceased would have continued to be dependents on the deceased for at teast 15 to 16 years. In this view of the matter, Vhe correct multiplier applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is 16. Multiplying the loss of dependency of Rs.12,0(X)/- by 16 (Rs.12,000/- x 16), the totat loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,92,000.00. To this amount, Rs.S.OO)/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. The total compensation assessed is as under: !S»»a Loss of dependency Funeral Expenses Loss of Consortium Loss of love and affection @ Rs.5000/- for each minor child. Total Rs.1,92,000/- Rs. 5,0)0/- Rs. 5,00V- Rs. 25,000/- Rs.2,27,00)/. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,27,000/-. Adjusting the compensation paid, if any, t>y the insurer, the remaining compensation shall be paid by Uie insurance company within a period of 2 months fromtoday. ^^ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ".1