-7 A-^-^\ .^ e' 9 • ^(o. HGN'BL! SHR! T.P.SHARMA, J. Ciaimants Hem Kumar @ Omi Chandrawanshi, Aged about 25 yesrs 2 Ku.Daleswari S/o Shri Kanwar, aged about 1 year Soth R/o Village - Metepar, PS Gsndstola, Oistt RsjHandg^GH (CG) Driv'er Owner Sanaulia Khan, S/o Amlnoullah Khan, Aged aboiit years,-R/o Tah & PS Dongargaon, Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) Satish Kumar Jaln S/o Shri SC Jain, Aged about 31 years, R/o Tah & PS Dongargaon, Distt Rajnandgaon (CG) National insurance Co.Ltd Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Kamthi SS? Motor Vehlcte Shri Anand Shukla, counsel tor the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counse! for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.3. s'" ucioDer, ^uusy The foilowing order of- the Court was passed by This is ciaimants' apoeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident ^iaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2008 passed in Claim Case No.102/2007. 2) The ctaimants, unfortunate husband and minor daughter of deceased Soniabai clalmed compensation of Rs.28,57,000/- by filing a cialm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for her death in the motor accident on 05.01.2007, when she was dashed by the offending vehicie truck bearing rsgistration No.CG-08/ZC 0489, resultlng in her instantaneous death on the spot itself. The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Soniabal used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as iabour. 3) The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the clalmants. The insurer of the truck took the further plea that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving llcsnse and the truck was being plied in breach ofthe pollcy conditions. 4) The Trlbunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Soniabai died bn account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 05.01.2007: the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehicle Sruck on the date of th.e accident was insured with the Natlonal Insurance ComDany i ;mited, the Insurance Companv was iiable to pav compensation to the ciaimants. 5) The Tribunal assessed te.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month. By deduct Rs.1.800/- towards the Dersonal exoenses of the income of the deceased at 50% of 1, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.900/- per month and Rs.10,800/- per annum. By multiplylng the annuai dependency of Ss.10,800/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,72,800/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,82.300/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Soniabai in the motor accident. The Trlbunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of Rs.1,82,300/- @ 6% per ar.num from the date of fiting of the ciaim petition, till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Anand Shukta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; in deductino 50% of the income of the deceased towards her persona! expenses; in selecting the lower muttlplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,82.300/- only. 7) Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,82.300/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Abhishek Sharma, iearned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 also supported the impugned award. ^) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Soniabai dled on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accldent on 05.01.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck: and the insurer of the truck was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finatity as the respondents have not filed any appea! against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findinas recorded bv the Trtbunat. 10) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Soniabai used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as labour, but in the evidence before the Tribunal, it was established that deceased Soniabal was getting Rs.60/- per day oniy. In this state of evldence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/- per month. 11) The Tribunal has certainly failen into error in deducting 50% of She income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, as there were three members in the family l.e. deceased Soniabal, her husband Hemkumar and Sheir daughter Ku. Daleswari. As such, the appropriate deduction wou!d be 1/3 of the 'ffl.come of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.14,400/- per annum. 12) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunai, considering the age ofthe deceased and her husband cannot be found fautt with. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.14,400/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.2,30,400/-. The claimants are. further entitled to aet Rs.5,000/- towards funeral <! '-; &'^, - for ioss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss 'N 8S; Rs.5, consortium to the husband. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,45,400/- as compensation for the death of deceased Soniabai in the motor accident. 14) 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 recelve interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 15) The accident in the present case wherein deceased Soniabai lost her life took place in the year 2007; the claim petition was flied bv She claimants in the year 2007; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2008; the present appeal was filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2008; and the appeal is being finaiiy decided in the year 2009. Considering all the reievant factors inciuding the delay in disposal of theciaim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company atone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,100/- at Rs.6,900/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeat filed bv the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,82,300/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,45,400/- wlth further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,900/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,100/-.. K •S^s,. %a ^^i 6 17) Respondent No.3 The National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totat sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.63,100/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,900/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,100/-) before the concernina Ciaims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge padma