HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1654 of 2008 Appellants 1. Claimants before the Tribunal 2. /< 3. Smt. Anjali Bai, widow w/o late Shri YugesRwar (Raju), aged about 28 years, Ku. Babita Sahu, s/o late Shri Yugeshwar (Raju), aged about 14 years through natural guardian mother Smt. Anjali Bai Pramod Kumar Sahu, s/o late Shri Yugeshwar (Raju), aged about 10 years through natural guardian mother Smt. Anjali Bai ^ Ku. Pushpanjali Sahu, d/o late Shri Yugeshwar (Raju), aged about 8 years through natural guardian mother Smt. Anjali Bai Narayan Sahu, s/o late Shri Jhunku Ram, aged about 60 years All appellants r/o village Rohanshi, P.S. Palari, distt. Raipur C.G. Ku. Yamini Sahu, d/o late Yugeshwar Sahu, aged about 6 years, through natural guardian mother Smt. Anjali Bai, r/o vill. Rohanshi, P.S. Palari, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicant before the Tribunal Suresh Kumar Sahu s/o Khelaan Ram Sahu, occupation Driver, r/o Shitlapara, Ram Nagar, Raipur Tahsil & distt. Raipur C.G. -^ /• ^ ( ^.... 1 1 ^^^"^'""r^ ^ ^'^. MAC.No. 1654 of 2008 ^ ^^ Minibus Vehicle No. C.G.04 E/0906 2. Bharti Singh w/o Rajkumar Singh, r/o Jaidurga Provisions Stores, Aadarsh Chowk Raja Talab, distt. Raiur C.G. Minibus Vehicle No. C.G.04 E/0906 3. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Movin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur Tahsil & distt. Raipur C.G. (Insurer Minibus Vehicle No. C.G.04 E/0906) Policy No.320800/31/05/ 6300005521 Insurance Valid From 30.03.2006 to 29.03.2007. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, counsel for the appellants. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (25th August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 18,10,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate wjdow, minor children and father of deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ^^ '< ^- ^ •3 1 ^ MAC.No. 1654 of 2008 ^ of Rs.2,36,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained'by him in the motor accident on 17.11.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.-04/E.-0906; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) 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. 12,0007- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12,0007- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,16,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,36,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest (^ MAC.No. 1654 of 2008 on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri N.K. Chatterjee, 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 only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,36,0007- only. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu used to earn Rs.4,000 - 5,0007- per month by working as Conductor in the Minibus, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- per month in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) Considering that deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident, we are of the ^^-^^ i"^:A '":^ /K;:^ 11«%1 ^, ^^'^/ ^•^^' M.A.C.No.1654 of 2008 opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) By deducting the usual 1/3rcl of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16,0007- per annum. 12) Considering that deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu was 30 years of age on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplierof 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to thewidow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Yugeshwar @ Raju Sahu in the motor accident. 14) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.51,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. ,-<^^ ,s '^^^ (^ M.A.C.No.1654 of 2008 The compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.51,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.56,000/- (Rs.51,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantjfied amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.51,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge subbu/^i^u: