' '^ ^^ -i-l't, i:^"t1!. Ciaimants »:S lii|| Savitri Devi Mishra, aged about 48 years w/o. Shri Shiv Prasad Mishra. Ku. Hansha Mishra aaed about 18 years, d/o. Shri Shiv Prasad Mishra. Satyanarayan Pandey aged about 86 years s/o Dindayal Pandey Ail R/o Udiyapara, Saraipali, P.0. Saraipali, Dist: Mahasamund (C.G.) t* te 1. Jairaju @ Raju, aged about 32 years, Non-ciaimants S/o. S.R. Pvlurthy, occupaSlon driver of Tata Sumo M.P.-20-H-6218 R/o Premises of Rajkumar Coltege, Raipur (C.G.5 2. Shri Shivpoojan Gupta aged about 28 years S/o. late Nathuni Prasad Gupta, R/o Ramkund, Uchhalal Talab Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur Owner of Tata Sumo No. M.P.-20-H-6218 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Shyam Market, Jeevan Beema Marg Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Insurer of the Tata Sumo M.P.-20-H-6218 MemorandumoT apDeai underSection 173 ofthe Motor Present: Shri J.N. Nande and Shri B.N. Nande, learned counset for the appellants. Shri M.L. Sakat, learned' counsel for respondent No.1. - • Shri Sudhir Aarawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsei for respondent No.3. y ^,'^;?(.'•tsa ^?usy; 'he followina order of the Court was passed This Is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accldents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.12.2002, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,52,000/- ctaimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate mother, sister and grandfather of deceased Ku. Pratibha Mishra by filing a ctaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accldent on 18.05.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2.27.000/- as compensation alona with interest G) 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led befors it heid that deceased Ku. Pratibha Mishra died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 18-05-2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. M.P.-20-H-6218; as the offending vehicie Tata Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the Orientai-frssurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company •was Ijable to pay compensation to the claimants. -^"s^y^., ;:f^ ^^\ £" ^i^^, ^- '^.i^5' i~. ^ •»>. ^<•(-/•' •-1...—.-.' •^^ tilfi'" iti iilB 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the ctaimants' dependency at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,25,000/-. Bv awardin.q further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,27,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ku. Pratibha Mishra in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the ciaim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 6) Shri J.N. Nande and Shri B.N. Nande, leamed counsel for the appeliants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- oniy. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proeer compensation in the facts and circumstances of the .present case. ...-'^ '^ ' ^?fel^ p \. ')./ ^ \ ^ ^>-\--'^i-- -'".&- •w*W^--. -S?!1-- &M- 8) Shri M.L. Sakat, iearned counsei for respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ku. Pratibha Mishra used to earn Rs.200 - 250/- per day from her Beauty Parlour, no coaent and reiiable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income 6f the deceased to that extent. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. )) In our Qpinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency ofthe claimants at Rs.15,000/- perannum. 11) The Tribunai certainly appears to have fallen into error in awarding only Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in not awarding any sum towards loss of estate. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.21 ,000/- inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation will make the compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) The appea! flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is altowed in part. The claimantsi*are awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- inclusive UUaftt-L,-^ .--•Y fs -v^-^/ •:tf-.^^" ^. of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.2,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited •9 is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.21,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justtce ; Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge wiSK. imi it(