I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH , BILASPUR ‘(Appeal under Section 17-3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) Appearance: i Shri Manoj Mishra, counsel for the appellant. l None tor respondents No. 1 & 2. l r Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. JUDGMENT (l‘f.03.2009) judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. this appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor r x Vehicles Act, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in M2.A.C.C. No. 20/2003 by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Jagdaipur vide award dated 30.1 .2004. . » Le Following ( 1) l Appellant/claimant has tiled ,e CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8r Hon’ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J,J. M.A. No. 522 of 2004 APPELLANT CEAIMANT Sukhdhar Markam S/o Sigaluram Markam aged 30 years, Caste Gond, resident of village Kadaibeda, Lanjoda, Tah. Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Rukdhar S/o Satyakora, aged 33 yrs Railway Colony Mishra Camp, Kirandul, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) (DRIVER) 2. Kalicharan Sharma S/o Gyanicharan . Sharma, Behind of Rest House, Main Road, Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) (OWNER) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.), Policy No. 451204/31/02/05506 validity period 14-3-03 to 13-3-2004 (INSURER) 2 M.A. No. 522 of 2004 } (2) ,Deceased Manki Bai was wife of the appellant who died in the motor% accident on 20.3.2003 when motorcycle No. CG-17-B/2618, on which, she was traveling, was dashed by the offending Truck No. CG-18- ‘ ZC/0316. (3) The appellant/husband med a Claim Petition for compensation of Rs.1 ,41 ,000l— on account of death of his wife in the said accident. It was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/— per month. i iv (4) The appellant/ciaimant examined himself as AW-1 and one Gaya Prasad was examined as AW-2, whereas, the respondents did- not examined any witness in rebuttal. t (5) l The appellant deposed that the deceased? was earning Rs.2,000/— per month; A certihcate (Ex.—P/5) was also produced in evidence showing that the deceased was working on collectorate rate in Kanya'Ashram Dhartora (Narayanpur), District Bastar (C.G.) and was earning Rs.1,933/- per month. . (6) i The Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/— per month. However, the dependency of the appellantV'was assessed at Rs.400/— per month and Rs.4,800/— per annum. Looking to the age ofthe deceased, which was 25 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and a l lump? sum amount of Rs.75,000/— was worked out. The Tribunal also awarfded 'Rs.12,000/- under‘the other heads and the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.87,000/—. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realizations. 3 M.A. No. 522 of 2004 1 (7) E Mr. Manoj Mishra, Iéarned counsel appearing on behalf of the appéllant, argued that the dependency has not been properly assessed and a low compensation has been awarded. 1 (8) On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (9) t Altie have heard the Ie’arned counsel for the parties at Iength and have also perused the records of the Claim Case. (10):? The Tribunal‘has not given any reason as to why the dependency would be worked out to Rs.400/— per month and Rs.4,800/— per annum. Sinc‘e there were two members in the family, therefore, we propose to deduct 50% of the amount and take the dependency as Rs.1,000/— per month and Rs.12,000l— per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased andithe appellant and further looking to the overall scenario that the deceased was wife of the appellant and the appellant was also having somi income, we deem it appropriate to use the. multiplier of 13. By applying the multiplier of 13, the compensation 1‘s worked out to Rs.1_ ,56,000/—. By adding a further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads as ihas been awarded by Claims Tribunal, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1 ,68,000/~. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.‘87,000I-, therefore, the enhanced amount of compensation comfes to Rs.81,000/- which the appellant/claimant is entitled to get on account of death of his wife in the motor accident. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said enhanced A a l 4 M.A. No. 522 of 2004 @ I amoQJnt of compensation from the date offlling of the Claim Petition till its reaiiiations. i i (11) The Insurance Company/respondent No.3 is granted tiivo months time to deposit this amount before the concerning Claims Tribunal. (12) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (13) There shall be no orders as to cost. l SdL— ‘ ,l_,._; .l ‘ Sd/- .tl SUNIL KUMAR smHA l a ‘ T. P. Sharma l Eli? ‘ Judge l t i Judge l i i l i l w § ‘ t ,\‘ ‘ t l l l a i l i I ‘ “T'Kl