^^ ^igi5«»»'' iiii-; y •Sispiiiaail HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRIRAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 568 of 2004 Appellants Applicant No.1 Applicant No.2 Applicant No.3 Respondents Non-applicant No.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Non-applicant No.2 2. Non-applicant No.3 3. Smt. Meena Bai, Widow of Siyaram, aged 24years. Yogeshwari D/o Siyaram, 6 years. Net Ram S/oSiyaram, aged 4 years (Appellant No.2 & 3 are minore through Guardian Ad-litem (Mother) Meena Bai Wd/o late Siyaram appellant No.1, Shyamlal S/o. Puranik, 60 years. Smt. Uma Bai W/o Shyamlal, 58 yrs. All are by caste - Sahu and R/o viilage Amarikala, Tah. Gurur, distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus Parau Ram S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu R/o Purana Bazar, Dalli Rajhara, Tah. Balod, distt. Durg (C.G.) Managing Director (SAIL) (Steel Authority of india Ltd.) B.S.P., Dalli Rajhara, Dlstt. Durg National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thrajgh it's Dh/isional Manager, Divisional Offlce - Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Memo of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act1988 Present: Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, tearned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counse! for respondent No.3. ,^;-' r;;il!:'^.. "•11» ^VS^ •>"> \^ ORDER (19tHJune,2009) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: • This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 09.02.2004, passed in Claim Case No.75/2002. 2. The ctaimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Siyaram claimed compensation of Rs.10,15,030/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 02.08.2002 when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Metador (407) bearing registration No. CG-07-B-1013, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Siyaram wtio succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Siyaram was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs.75/- per day by serving in an Electrical Shop. 3. The owner of the offending vehicte Metador did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The driver and thre insurer of the offending vehicle Metador contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that deceased Siyaram himself was responsible for the accident. The msurer took the further plea that the driver bf the offending vehicle Metador was not holding a valtd l"'i;n"<']h ,lifliiil •! " iiaaia ".ss^ (^) :»1 <[!a!llll»:ia driving licence and the Metador was being plied In breach of the policy conditions. 5. The claimants examined AW-1 Shyam Lal, AW-2 Yog^h Kumar Sharma and AW3 Dhanunjai Kumar Thakur in support of their claim, whereas the driver of the offending vehicle Metador examined NAW1 Parvuram and NAW2 Rathiram in rebuttal. 6. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Siyaram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.08.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador; and as the offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensatlon to the claimants. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30/- per day. By deducting a sum of Rs.12/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.18/- per day and Rs.540/- per month & Rs.6,480/- per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rs.6,480/- wiffi the multiplier of 17, the compensation wasworked out to Rs.1,10,160/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,160/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date 6f actual payment. 8. Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in .^},.^- ^ ^•s' --fl 4 assessing his income at Rs.30/- per day onty; in not awarding any sum towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortlum to the widow; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,10,160/-. 9. Shri Raj Awasthi, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,10,160/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Slyaram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.08.2002; the driver of the offending veMcle Metador was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, these findlngs are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Siyaram usefi to earn Rs.75/- per day by working in an Electrical Shop, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, f.s-. therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence' about the income of the deceased. 12. Nevertheless, the income ofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.30/- per day is certainly on the lower side. The "%>. @!8l a1F~iff ^ iiaiBtt; la'SIBIS8 accident in the present case, wherein deceased Siyaram lost his life took place in the year 2002. In those days an abte-bodied person aged about 25 years could have easity eamed a sum of Rs.50/- per day by working as an un-skilled labourer. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day; Rs.1,500/- per month; and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 13. By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.18,0(X)/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 14. Considering that deceased Siyaram was aged about 25 years and his widow Smt. Meena Bal was aged about 24 years on the date of the accident, the multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion, is appropriate. 15. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2,04,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- tawards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,19,000/- as compensation Tor the death of deceased Siyaram in the motor accident on 02.08.2002. 16. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the .E:.: i:^j^r.^. ". ,...nu^''? '\i iSJil! 'IB! ^:-^./ iSjSi, g .iisiS enhanced amount of compensatlon may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17. The accident in.the present case took place in the year 2002. The Tribunal passed the impugned award In the year 2004. The present appeal was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2004 and the same is being finally decided in 2009. 18. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the disposal of the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,08,840/- at Rs.11 ,160/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal Ttled by the appetlants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,10,160/- awarded by the Tribunalis enhanced to Rs.2,19,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,160/- on the enhancNl amount of compensgtiori of Rs.1,08,840/-. ). Respondent No.3.JMational Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,20,CKX)/- (Rs.1,08,840/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,160/- towards the quantlfied amount of '^ar "'ws ^v-f^ ••vwef interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,08,840/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No order as to costs. - Sd/- ChiefJustiee Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi