HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLEteHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J J, Misc. ApDealNo. 39/2005 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Sima Ghosh Widow of Shekhar Ghosh, aged about 31 years, Occupation- House Wife. 2. Ku. Puja Ghosh D/o Late . Shekhar Ghosh, Aged about- 9 years, 3. Abhishek Kumar Ghosh S/o Late Shekhar Ghosh Applicant No.2 & 3 are represented by legal Guardian Mother Sima Ghosh Applicant No.1 All are Resident of Village- Street No.4, New Kirti nagar Raipur, Tah & Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Basanti Mandal Widow of Nepal Chandra, R/o Near Vidya School, ShankarNagar, Raipur, Tah & Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The National Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988) Appearance: Mr. A.L. Singrol, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER (19.11.2010) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 51/2004 "'SSSeSh S "s^^./ i'siS!S!.aSlS*''' Misc. Appeal No. 39/2005 by the 10 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 29.10.2004. 1. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased- Shekhar Ghosh, filed a Claim petition u/s 166of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 37,000,00 /- for his death in motor accident, which took place on 14.01.2001. The deceased wan on occupant in the Jeep, which was dashed by a bus of State Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligence driving ofthejeep by Nepal Mandal. 2. The appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by working asAccountant in an egg industry. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that the said income was not proved, therefore, the Tribunal on its own determined that deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and 24.000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs. 16,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 15 to Rs.16,000/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 12.000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensations was worked out to Rs. 2,52,000/-, which the Tribunal awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased - Shekhar Ghosh in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded intere?t @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. 3. Mr. A.L. Singrol, learned counsel for the appellants, argues' that the income was not properly assessed by the Tribunal. He submits that when on the evidence available on record the income was not proved, the Tribunal ought to have resorted to the provisions of Section 163(A) and it ought to have Misc. Appeal No. 39/2005 calculated the compensation on the basis of notional income. He submits that since the accident occurred in the year 2001, therefore the notional income of Rs. 30.000/- should have been taken by the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, opposes these arguments and supportsthe award passed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also peruse the records of the Claim case. 6. Though the appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as an accountant in the egg industry, but the employer was not examined and no documents were called from the said industry to prove such income of the deceased. The Tribunal did not rely on the testimony of Mahesh Sinha (A.W.2), who claimed to be a co- worker of the deceased in the said industry and who tried to prove that the deceased was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal on its own held that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. The said finding appears to be without any basis. The approach of the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. When there was no evidence of the income, the Tribunal ought to have resorted to provisions of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle, Act and it ought to have calculated compensation on the basis of notional income. 7. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. Looking to rise of prices of essential commodities and cost of living in between the year 1994 to 2001, the notional income of Rs. 15;000/- prescribed in the year 1994, in our opinion, should have been taken as Rs. 30,000/- in the year 2001 for the purposes of determining the compensation on account of death of the deceased- Shekhar @ss:s:^%^^pl^^^^^^^j^^^^^^Sjl Misc. Appeal No. 39/2005 Ghosh. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.30,000/-, the dependency of the appellants/claimants Would come to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the age of the deceased, his widow as also the children, we deem it appropriate to apply multiplier of 14 in this matter. By applying multiplier of 14 to the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,80,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 15,000/- under other permissible heads, the total compensation works out to Rs. 2,95,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,52,000/-. By deducting Rs. 2,52,000/- from Rs. 2,95,000/-, the difference comes to Rs. 43,000/- The appellants/ claimants are thus entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 43,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased- Shekhar Ghosh in the motor accident. 9. To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimant's appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.4,000/- in this matter. 10. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 47,000/- more (Rs. 43.000/- as the enhanced amountof compensation and Rs. 4,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which the appellants shall receive from the National Insurance Company. 11. The National Insurance Company Ltd. / respondent No.2 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. Mjsc. Appeal No.^9/2005 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated abov shall be no orders as Lojie cost(s). Sd/- SunUKumarSmha Judge ^^na*"judge