HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGftRH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J. HON'BLE SHRi SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.809 of 2004 Appellants Ciaimants Respondents Non-applicants 1 Smt Mamta Bai, Widow of Dewanand ,13ewa, Aged about 25 years 2 Tiharu Ram, S/o Late Bodhan Ram Dhruw, aged about 12years 3 Smt Desir Bai, W/o Tiharu Ram Dhruw, agedabout48years 4 Kumari Omeshwari, D/o Dewanand Dhruw, aged about 1 year represented hereby legal guardian W/ali JVIata Smt Mamta Bai, Widow of Late Dewanand All resjdents of Villaae Behramuda, post Navapsra, Tahsi! & PoliGe Stafion — Gariyaband, Distt Raipur CG VERSUS 1 Vijay Kumar Tak; S/o Jeevan Lai Tak, R/o Village & Post—Malgaon, Tahsii & Poiice Station, Gariyaband, Distt - RaipurCG 2 The New Indja Insurance Company Ltd., Through I3ivisional Manager, The New tndia Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur,Tahsil&DisttRaipurCG Misc.AbDealunderSection173oftheMotOFVehicles Act. 1888 • :':. .l'": ^ .':'i Shri S.C. Verma, eounselfoFiheapplellanits. NoneforrespondentNQ.IttiQughserved. Shri ft.K. Athaley, counsel for respoodeht N6i2. ^:32...^:S^S^ ORDER (23rd September, 2010) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. - This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancCTient of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.12.2003, passedinClaimCaseNo.01/2003. 2) As agaihst thecompensatipn of 7,81,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Dewanand @ Dewa by filing a ciaim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehieles Act, fbrhisdeath in the motoraccidenton 26.12.2002, theT'ribunalawardedatotalsumof Rs.1,87,000/- as compensafion along with interest @ 9% per annumfromthedateofthefilingoftheclaim petltiontill the dateof actual payment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led befbre it held that deceased Dewanand @ Dewa died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.12.2002; the accident occurred dye to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor/ TrQlley bearing re9tstration/No.C.Gi.-04ZG/5218andG.G.-04ZG%219,Fespectively; as the above offending vetii61e Tractor/ Trolley on;tlie datje of the accident wefe insyred with the New India Insunance Company Llmited and tlie Insurance Gompany could not establish any breiach ofthe policylcohdjfiDns, the Insurance Companywasi^abletopay eompensation to theclaimants. SISSB?%ByMM81 m 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- perannum. By deductihg 1/3''d Qf Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- perannum. By muttiplying the annuai dependency pf Rs.10,OQO/-' with the muitiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- urider other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Dewanand @ Dewa in the motor accident. The Tribunai further direGted-payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition til! the date Qf actual payment. 6) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants subrnitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding lowcomRensation of Rs,1,87,OQO/- only. 7) Shri.X.K. Athaley,learned counsei fbr respondent Nb.2 the New India Ihsurance Company t.imited, on the other hand supported theiaward|and contended that^sthe claimants co|uld not establish the ]incQme 6f the deceased as pieaded by thenit the compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is jyst and @ ^ :^,^!!itSii3'i^ '•.sv- ."—•.-: '•s^'iSSS!-.-^^-^ 1«a.Si':ii.'iy!8 SK :((Bli.ilii lil tiltaj 'ujnuuej9d-/oOO'1?'S'sypuetiiuoiuj3d-/OQO'Z'5y:tBp9se903p a4t 10 sujoouj ay} 6ui>|e} 4Dt}BSU9duuoo 94t3indLuoo9j o^ esodojd •ajo^sjayi 'SAA ZOOZ .is^ 341 ui jnoqei p3j|!>)sun ue se BUDJJOM Aq U3A3 Ljiuoiu -isd -/ooo'Z'sy psujes AIISBB aAey p|noo 3L| 154} UCUUldO 34} ,(0 3JE 9AA 'lUaplOOB 81)110 3fBp 9L|t UO SJB3A ^ tn0qe ps6e SBM EM9Q @ pueue%9a pssesoap }eyi Suyapisuoo fei, •uoiiBJspisuoosj ssjinbej pue epis JSMO! 341 uo AIUIBVSO si zoOZ jesA SL|} ui lunuue jad -/ODO'91.'sy4e |eunqyi syiAqpssssssepsseaospeytioSLUOouisy} 'sseisyiJSASN ([,), •pssesoepsyipSiuooui 34} }noqe eouepiAe .siUEUjiBio eqi Buipjeosip ui leunqui aiit p qoeojdde eyi ui tinei Aue puy pu op '3Joi3j3L)i 'SAA 'ejn^EU BUJI|OU!|O ^o tou seM.iiByeq iei)i uj pa| eouspiAS BL]} 'AS||OJI /JOIOBJJ. sy} yt j9iJOd/|ELUB|-|/9i|ooo SB 6ui>|JOM Aq yiuoLU jsd -/OQS'^'sy U-IBS o) pssn e 3Q I pUBueMea pasBBOsp teq^ papeeid S}UBLU!B|O sq^ 'smi (oi. •3SBO }U3SSjd 31.JI 10 SSOUElSLUnSJIO pue spei 3L)i u! uonesusduuoo jsdojd pue }snf si leunqyi eyi Aq pspjeme -/OOO'AG' I'sy ^o uoiiesusdujoo sq} jsqieqm oise suiuuexs iieys Q •'MON (e •ezueuoqe jou 'uosiesuadLUOO p lunouue jaBeeiu e sq jeqiieu p|noi)s 41 •sseo sq^p seoueisLunojio pue stoeisqi ui uoiiesusdiuoo jsdojd pue }snf sq pinoijs s|eunqul / stjnoo SLJ} Aq pspJBAAB sq 0} uoBesusdiuoo 341 vsw si iue}joduui si ^B^M aseo iure|3 tuspiooe JO}OLUB u| (g •3SBO aqijo saoueisiunojio pue spe^ sq) ui uojiBsusdiuoo jsdojd 13) By deductlng the usual 1f'3rcl of Rs.24,OQO/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering theage of the deceased, his widow, daughter and parents, we are ofthe opinion that muitiplier of16would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitipljer of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The claimantsare further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,000/- forloss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the v/idow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs;2,71,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Dewanand @ Dewa in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may bequantified in thisappeai itself. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter inclyding the delay in disposal oftheclaim petitionand the present appeai, and the fact thatthe Insurance Company aione is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amoynt of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/- at Rs.11,000/-. i . — " i[ 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fjled fey the dppellants/ Claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. iK vssa^^issfsi^ •'^i^^T'n.^^MJi^::^ • ..-«4"'%, J ")»,; The compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhancedto Rs.2,71,000/-withfurtherquantified amount ofinterest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.84,000/-. 19) Respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rs.84,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhancedamount of compensation of Rs.84,QOO/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 20) Noorder as tocosts. . Sd/- Ouef Justice Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge subbu li.1.1! :':-,aweS3fa».»yi"B