q. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH E Aphellants CIéimants V: Smt. Sarojni Bai, widow of late Sevak Das aged about 30 years, Chandani Das, s/o Iate Sevak Das, aged about 3 1/2 years, (minor) I Navratan Das, slo late Sevak Das, aged about 1 1/2 years (minor) The respondent no.2 and 3 are minor through their natural guardian appellant no.1 Smt. Sarojni Bai. All R/o village Tildega, Indira Nagar, tahSil Paththalgaon, distt. Jashpur C.G. Respondents 2 Chandar Das @ Chandar Prasad lPanika, s/o Bahal Das Panika, aged about 35 years, driver Durga Bus Service, r/o. village Saliyadih, police station Batauli, at present r/o Gandhinagar, tahsil Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. ' VERSUS Vijay Kumar s/o late Munshi Prasad Sao, aged about 41 ye‘ars, (Durga Bus service), r/o. oldk bus stand Ambikapur, tahsil Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (OWNER) (DRIVER) coRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEv GUPTA, c.J. & ‘ HON’BLE SHRI N.K; AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 525 of 2004 m 2 M.A. No. 525 of 2004 3 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited near Ram Mandir, tahsii Ambikapur, distt. Surguja, C.G. (INSURANCE CO.) 4 Jaggi, s/o late Ram Kumar Agrawal, aged about 45 years, r/o Ambikapur road, Paththalgaon, tahsil Paththalgaon, distt. Jashpur C.G. 5 Smt. Krishna Devi wife of P.D. Agrawal, aged about 4O years, r/o Jashpur Road, Paththalgaon, tahsil Paththalgaon, distt. Jashpur C.G. 6 The Oriental insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance‘ Company Ltd. Raigarh C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the appellants. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel on behalf of Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Pravesh Sharma, counsel on behalf of Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel for re‘spondent No.6. ORDER (12th December, 201 1) 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 5'“ Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 12.03.2004, passed in Claim Case No.13/2003. 3 M.A. N0. 525 of 2004 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of \ deceased Sevak Das, by niing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident oni15.10.2002, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.87,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of 4V fiiing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) V ‘The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sevak Das died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.10.2002; the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased Sevak Das who at the time of the accident was driving the Truck bearing registration No.CG-15ZC/0322 and the driver of the other vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.G.—15ZA/0279; the negligence of the deceased and the driver of the‘Bus was to the extent of 50% each; as the above Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/— per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,200/- towards the personal expenses of the‘deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.800/— per month and Rs.9,600/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/— with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,53,600/—. By l l l wwma 4 M.A. No. 525 of 2004 awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensatron at Rs 1 75 600l— As deceased Sevlak Das was held responSIble for the accrdent to the extent of 50%, the claimants were held entitled to receive Rs.87,800/— only i.e. i . 50% of Rs.1 ,75,600/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of djeceased Sevak Das in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of R§f§7,800l— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim t , petition till the date of actual payment. 5) S{hri Vishnu Koshta, 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.1,200/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.87,800/— only. 6) Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.87,800/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Shri Pravesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Prashant Jayaswalfvieamed Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Truck also supported the award. t 5 M.A. No. 525 Of 2004 8) Though Iearned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the: finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Sevak i Dae also equaliy contributed to the accident, for our satisfaction, we haVe examined the entire materiai avaiiabie in the Tribunal’s reciords; and considering the nature and manner of the accident; and i thei fact that the two vehicles involved in the accident are Truck and Bus, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held the drivers of p the Frock (deceased Sevak Das) and of the Bus equally responsible for the accident. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1 ,75,600/— assessed by the Tribunal and Rs.87,800/— awarded to the claimants are just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sevak Das used to earn Rs.4,000/— per month as Truck Driver, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,000/— pertmonth. For the reasons best known to the claimants, neither the owner of the Truck nor any other person on his behalf was examined before “the Tribunal for establishing the‘income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per month. 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 deceasedt 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/— per month in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. ’.‘_ 6 z“ MA. No. 525 of 2004 12) Since the accident occurred in the year 2002 and the deceased admittedly was a Truck Driver, the Tribunal, in our opinion, i t ought to have assessed his income atieast at Rs.2,000/— per month and§Rs.24,000/— per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the Ec‘ompensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000l— per inonth and Rs.24,000/- per annum. i 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/— per annum. u; 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 16, selected by the Tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. As deceased Sevak Das has been held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants are entitled to receive 50% of ‘Rs.2,56,000/- i.e. Rs.1,28,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 15) 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 the widow. The claimants, thus, 1: become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,43,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Sevak Das in the motor accident. vx 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive 7 M.A. No, 525 of 2004 interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of intetest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantitied € i in this appeal itself; 17):; Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including l theidelay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and‘ the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,200/- at Rs.14,800/—. 18) For the fore‘going reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. While maintaining the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Sevak Das who was driving the Truck at the time of the accident equally responsible for the accident, the compensation of Rs.87,800/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,43,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.14,800/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,200/-. £ 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.70,000/— (Rupees Seventy thousand only) (Rs.55,200/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.14,800/- towards quantified amount of interest on thexenhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,200/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sdl- . VSd/- Chief Justice ,3‘ N. K. Agarwal ‘ Judge