A- ^•^. ^o^ a>^ O.F AT cv SHRi CJ. & SUNIL J. Dhaneshwari Yadav, W/o iate Hansiai Yadav, Aged about 25 years, Occupation-House wife, R/o Viliage Khaiiba, Post Raghavpuri, P.S. & Tahsil Ambjkapur, Distt: Surguja-" (C.G.) 1. Rajendra Singh Chabra, S/o Singh Chabra, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Namna Kaia Ring Road (!n front of Ponds), P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist : Surguja- (C.G.) 2. Daya Shankar Singh, S/o Ram Swarath Singh, Aged about 30 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Mohalla Dampara, Post ; Nagar, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist : Surguja - (C.G.) Orientai insurance Company, Branch Ambikapur Through Branch Manager, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tshsii Ambikapur, Dist: Surguja - (C.G.) 173(21 OFiSOTOR ACT FOR OF Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counse! for the appeilant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawai, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. ORDER -.J- (21st Janyary, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ.: This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 09-08-2004, passed in CSaim Case No.11/2004. 2. The claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Hanshlai Yadav ciaimed compensation of Rs.44,15.000/- by fiiing a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 01-03-2004, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle Bus bearing registratlon NG.CG15A 2155, resuitlng in multipje serious injuries to Hanshial Yadav, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. The ciaimant further pfeaded that her husband Hanshlaf Yadav used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from Agriculture and by seiiing Mi!k. 3. The owner, 'driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Bus contested the claim ,and denied their liabiiity to pay compensatiors to the claimant on the plea that the deceased himseif was responsibie for the accident. The Insurer of the Bus took the further piea that the driver of the Bus was not holding a vaiid driving licence and the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The ciaimant examined AW1 Dhaneshwari Yadav & AW2 Ramavatar Yadav in support of her claim, whereas the Insurer of .•:''-1;^' ^ ^ A ^% f ''--> the offending vehicle Bus examined NAW1 Ajay Pal Gupta in rebuttal. 5. The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied by the parties heid that deceased Hanshla! Yadav dsed on account of the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 01-03-2004; the accldent occurred due to rash and negligent drivirig of the driver of the offending vehicie Bus; as the offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited; the Insurance Company was liab!e to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses, the TribunaS assessed the claimant's dependency at Rs.1,3307- per month. By muttipiying the annual dependency with the muitipiier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,39,400/-.,The Tribuna! awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.3;OQO/- towards funeraiexpenses; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony; and Rs.500/- towards damage to the cycie. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Hanshial Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunat further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. "^ '\- €^:j 7. Shri Sushi! Dubey, iearned counsel for the appeilant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,000/- per month only; in seiecting the lower multlpiier of 15; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- oniy. 8. Shri Sudhir Agrawa!, iearned counsel for respondent No.S/Oriental Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that ciaimant's husband Hanshiai Yadav died on account ofthe injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 01-03-2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus; and the insurer ofthe offending vehicie Bus was liabie to pay compensation to the claimant, have now attained fEnality as the resppndents have not fiied any appeai against the av^ard. That apart, there is overwhetming evidence available on record to estabiish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 10. True, the daimant pleaded that her husband deceased Hanshla! Yadav used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month from Agricuiture and by selling Miik but the evidence led in that behaif was not of ciinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discardlng the cfaimant's evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month is on the iower slde. Considering the occupation of the deceased and the fact that the deceased died in the accident which took place in the year 2004, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased ought to have been at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3;000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 12. As there were only two members in the family i.e. deceased Hanshlai Yadav and his wife claimant Dhaneshwari Yadav, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By deductlng 50% of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses from Rs.36,000/-, the clalmant's dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000/-. 13. Considering that deceased Hanshial Yadav was found to be about 28 years, we are of the opinion that the multipiler of 15 selected by the Tribunai Is appropriate in the facts of the present in vlew of the dictum of the Apex Court in the of Co. Vs. reported in 14. By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- wlth the muitipiier of 15, the compensation works out to 2,70,000/-. The ciaimaQt.ls-furtbfii-.entitied to recelve a sum of Rs.5,0'00/- towards ( h loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.500/- for damage to the cycte. The claimant, thus; become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,85,500/-. 15. Learned counse! for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the appeiiant/ claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16. Considering all the relevant factors including the deiay in disposal of the ciaim petition and the present appeai and the fact that the insurance Company aione is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.22,500/- at Rs.2,500/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appellanV claimant for enharicement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,85,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.22,500/-. 18. Respondent No.3/ The Orientat Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.22,500/—tov^ards enhanced amount of compensation^_Rs.2,500/- towards the quantified amount of /f-T^, . ?sj& J -te5^ ^ interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunat. 19. No order as to costs. ,— .——====^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimms