H§Gé€ 663R? (3F CHHA??iSGQRi-§ AT BIL S?UR 9§W$30N BENC Cm‘am : §§GN’§LE 3H§i RAEEV GU?TA, 53.3. HGWLE SHRI $U§§§L KUMAR $§NHA, J. IMA, N9. WQ o? 2$$2 A?PEILAN‘E‘$ 1;. Smt. Narmada a§ias Narvaa‘ Sahu, A?P£SCANT$ Widow of Late Ramiai Sahu, aged 38 years. . Shi’i Govénda Sahu, Slo Laie ‘ 1 RamiaiSahu, aged myears; ‘ 3. Ku‘ Samnfaia Sahu; D/o Late Ramiai Sam, agw i? years, 4. Sm Niiin Sahu, Sic Late Rama; ‘ Sam, aged 15 yeag’s, " 5. ‘Ku‘ Mangu Sam; D/o Late Ramaai Sahu, aged 13 years. AppHcani NQB to 5 being minars; re sumg thmugh mother a mturai guardian Smt. Narmada Bai; Widaw of Late Ram§ai Sahu, R/o W age Sakri, Biiaspur. Vemmss RES?QNQEN?§3! '1. Shri Rajesh Agrawal, /o Shri NGI¥-§PPL§C§NT$ u ‘ Radheshankar Agrawai, R/c Near Bus Stand, Biiaspur. 2. The Or§emai msurance Company, ,Bi'anch Office at BHaspur. AapeaE under $eciian ’5?3 of Meicr ¥ehic§es Asa 1983 Wegent : Shri Devars‘ni Thakur, ieérned cognsei for the appeaamg. Shri Ravindm Agrawai', iearned co‘unsel for responrient No.1. Shri Vinay Harit, iaamed senior counsel with Shri Suryakam Misha, learned counse§ far {espondent NG.2. H & 2 ” QRDER (2am Apm, was) The Mowing order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta; C“). This §s claimants’ appea? fiied under Section 373 of the Metor Vehicies Act (for short ‘ihe Act’) for enhancement of the compensaticn awarded by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Easter ai Jagda§pur (for shaft “'éhe Tribunai”) vide award dated 20-1 2-2901, passed in Claim Case Ne. 22Gf1998. 2. The ckaimams, uriferiunate widow and miner chiidren of deceased — Ramiai Sahu ciaimed campensation 0f Rs.6,20,600/— by firing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Act for his deaih in the mo‘ior' accident on 24-06—1997 when the offending vehicie — Metader bearing registration No. MP26—Dl2180 in which he was I traveiiing with his goods, met with an accident due to rash and negiigent driving of its driver reeuiting in death of two occupante of the Metedor ineioding deceased Ramiai Sahu. The ciaimants further oleaded that deceased Ramiai $ahu was aged about 85 years and used to earn Rs.2,?86/— per month by working in Area Project of Water Resources §epertment 3i The owner of the ivietadordid not contest the oieim and was prooeeoied ex pane before the Tribunai. 4. The insurer or the Matador contested the ciaim and denied its iiabiiity to pay compensation to the cieimants on the plea that the Metador was being ptied in breach oi the poiicy conditions and the driver oi the Metador was not hoiding a valid driving iioenoe. @ v 5‘ The ciaimanis examined AW? — $mt. Narmada alias Nan/ad $a‘nu in support 0f ‘iheir ciaim, whemas the insurer 0f ihe Matador di§ not examine any w§tne$s in rebuitaL 6. The Tribuna§ on ihe evidense ied. befare ii heid tha’i deceased - Ramiai Sam! died on acseun‘t of fne injuries sustaineé by him En the mmm accideni 0n 24-O6—19Q7; the accident occurred awe io {ash and negiigenf driving of the driver of the Metador; and as thg x Meiader was msured 0:1 the daie <3? éhe" acoia’ent wi‘i‘n Orieniai msuranoe Compaay Liméied, the imurame Cempany was iiame to my campen$aian to ithe ciaimants. 7. The Tfibuml asse$$ed ihe 'mcame of the deceased at Rezmw- per monih. By deductmg 1/3“ of Rs.2,7§0f— towards the goersenai expeesee ef the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Re.1,8901— per month and Rs.21,600/- per annum. By mmtipiying the anmei dependency of Re.21 ,SOGI- wiih ihe mummier 0'? 13, §he compensation was wog’ked outdo Rs.2,86,8{30/-. By awarding fudner eum of RSEEGGI— toward iose of ooneodium io fne Widow; Rs.2,500!— for mes ef esiaie; Rs.2,5GQ/— for funerai expenses, ’i‘ne Tribunal awarded a toiai sum of Rs.2;90;800/- as compensadon i5 ine ciaimanie aiong with interest {E 9% per ennum from 28-63-2GQO, tnekdete on which the insurer of the Metador titet time aeoeai’ed before the Ttibunai. 8. $nri Devarshi T‘nekur, iearned counsei for the appeilante submttted that the Tribune! has erred in seteoting the tower muitiptier of 13 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,90,8OQ/- oniy. Q. Shri Vimy Harit, §eamed semor ccunsei for reSponcSent No.2 - insurer 3f the Meiadm on the other hand supponted the award ané submitied that ihe ‘;‘r§bunai has been qu§ie Eberai in awarding su‘wsfaniia! amouni 0f Rs.2,§0,800/— as; compensatmn to the ciaimams. 10. $3M Ravindra Agrawah iearned caunsei for respondem N01, ihe cwner of the Metador also supperted the award. ’:’L The findings recorded by the Tribunai that deceased Ramlai $ehu dree en accounr of the injuries susrained by him in rhe meter accident en 24-06-19Q7; the driver of rhe Metador was responsibie fer the accrdent; and the Insurance Company was ria‘cie to pay- cernpeneation to the claimants have now attained finality a3 the reepondente have net fiied any appeai against the award. Even otherwise, theee findings are no? under chaiienge' before us in this appeai. We, iherefore, affirm the findings recorded by ihe Tribunal in iha‘i behaif. 12A The ciaimanis pieaded rhat deceased Ramiai Sahu used‘ie earn Rsr2,?86/— per month. AW/i —- Smi. Narmada aiias Narvad Sahu, the widow or’ deceased Ramtai Sahu etated in her statement before the Tribunai that her husband used to get eatery of Rs.2,?90/- ear menth. The TrEhunai, therefore, has not ccmmttted any ittegaiity in assessing the income 0t the deceased at Re.2,7QOI- per month. The ciaimante‘ dependency aieo has been rightiy assessed by the Tribune: after deducting 1/3” ef the income or" the deceased tcwards his perscnat expenses. ‘ @ 13. The muitmHer of 13 selected by the TribunaS considering that the w§dow of the deceased Rama} Sah was 32 years af age at the t§me of the accident, is ceriamiy on the iower $ide. m our consEdered \JESW, fhe muiiip§§e¥ of 1 4 wouid be appropriate m the presem case. ’34. By muitipEying i‘ne annual dependency of Rs21 ,60D/— with the muii§piie¥ of 14; the compens‘aiian works out to Rs.3,G2,4GG/~. By adding further sum of Rs.10,,000/- awarded by ihe Tribunai towards {ass of coneoriium i0 the widow; funeral expenses; and icss cf estaie, the claimants become entitled i0 receive a total sum af Rs.3;‘l 2;400/—. 15; Coneldering all the relevant aspects; we cleem it proeer it) quantify the amountof interest payable to the claimeris 0n the enhanced ameunt of compensailen of R321 ,6DGI- at Rs.3,400!-. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by ihe apoeiientefclaimants under Section 178 of the Act tOt enhancement of the compensation is aitowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,§u,800./— awatded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,12,400/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,4GO/— on the enhanced amount of compensation 17. Respondent No.2 — The Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Re.25,UOG/~ (Rs.2’i,8OU/- towards enhanced amount ot compensation + Rs.3,400!- towards quantified amount of interest on @ %he enhanced amount of campensation) before ma concerning Ciaims Tribunai. subbu 18 Na omer as to costs. r‘i (gir ‘ Sd/- ‘r \ Sdl- ‘ ' E J Sunil Kumar Sinha‘i chief Justice Judge ‘