^.F.^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 2003 1. Sayambani, widow of late Hira Lai aged about 40 yrs. 2. Jama Bai Gada aged about 60 years W/o. Matli Gada R/b. Village - Chhura, Dist: Raipur Versus APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Yogendra Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o. Bhavan Singh, R/o. Vill: Mudgaon, P.0. Chhura, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sukh Singh S/o. Chamru Singh Thakur R/o. Fing^hwar, Tahsil & Dist. Mahasamund. 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional IVIanager, Divisional Office, Kuttecheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appeltants. None for respondents No.1 S2. Shri Abhishek Sinha & Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (13th July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This is ciaimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident ^—ri—iAuA <;»!»«<; lli ilM 'v^ j£' ^y Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.12.2002, passed in Claim Case No.53/2002. 2) The appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and mother of deceased Hira Lal, claimed compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.04.2002, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP23D/8014, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Hira Lal, who succumbed to those injuries the same day. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Hira Lal was aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason. 3) The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehlcle Motorcycle contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the ciaimants. The insurer took the further ptea that the motorcyclist was not holding a valid driving licence. 4) The claimants examined AW1 Sayambani Gada and AW2 SahSosh KumarGada in support of theirclaim, whereas the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Motorcycle examined NAW-1 Yogendra Singh in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted before it hetd that deceased Hira Lal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.04.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the motorcycljst; as the offending vehicle Motorcycle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the iMuauii iin •ill || fK*«n» '•*.. jMaits i ,y.?" '^. '^i-'"'^" :i!s^^v" Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the muitiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,48,OCX)/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Hira Lal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri S.C. Verma, 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 assessing his income at Rs.1 ,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- only. 8) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal isjust and ^!^ proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Hira Lal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.04.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycie was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Hira Lal used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Mason, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deeeased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum is certainiy on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased ouaht to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13) The notional income of Rs.15,0007- per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the ^l Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Hira Lal lost his life, took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of livina between the year 1 994 and the year 2002, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the in the year 1994would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3r° of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 15) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Hira Lai was aged about 45 years and his widow Sayambani Gada was 40 years of age, we are satisfied, is appropriate in the present case. 16) By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum 6f Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of Hira Lai in the motor accident on 28.04.2002. 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period ,j3_^|^yt*au*l UtWilsB.:._ .t-id;4 i ~'-^ .:i r' tl'ri:;ffilit, •| 8i^K*i!1 'S :'•)s 'ifsy 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 appeal itself. 18) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Hira Lal lost his life took place in the year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2002; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2003; and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon was filed by the appellants in the year 2003; and the same is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the faet that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- at Rs.13,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.1,07.000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards the quantified amount of .-nu—UUI.A.KB.i !-t< interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 211 No order as to costs. sd/- CIuef Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu II tf^UitUiAdUt:,