HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellants M.A. No. 807 of 2003 1. Bhagat Ram @ Bhagau Ekka slo Bandhan aged about 45 years. Smt. Tiharin Bai w/o Shri Bhagat Ram @ Bhagau Ekka aged about 42 years, Both of Residence of village Pandripani, Po!ice Station Balco d Respondents Non-applicants istt. Korba (c.G.) VERSUS 1. Goverdhan @ Vijay (Truck Driver) R/o viliage Batra Tahsii Pali Clo. Shri ChandraxPrakash Yadav Q. No. 18/52 Shid Bhagat Singh Colony Korba (C.G.) 2. Shri Chandra Prakash Yadav (Truck Owner) MP. 26 D3337, S/o Shri S.P. Yadav aged about 32 years, R/o Q. No. 1B/52 Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony S.E.C.L. Korba (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager. the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited T.P, Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Vishesher s/o Man Bhulau Das (Truck Driver) Truck No. C.G. 12 ZC/O502, R/o Gajra Banki Mongra, c/o Shri Ajay Lamba, Lalu Ram Colony Korba, distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. Shri Ajay Lamba s/o Shri Kailash Lamba R/o Lalu Ram Colony, Korba, distt. Korba (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri M.K. Baeg, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (03m January, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Dujram are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 11.07.2003, passed in Claim Case No.99/2002. ‘2) As against the compensation of Rs.33,50,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Dujram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.03.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,70,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants’ son Dujram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.03.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.M.P.26/D-3337; as the above Offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the «w Insurance Company could not estabHsh any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award, the/ above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/~ per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants‘ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 0,000!- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000f- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/— under other heads. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000l— as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Dujram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri MK. Baeg, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- only though the claimants were wholly dependent on the income of their son Dujram. I l t l 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 — the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/: awarded by_ the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) The unfortunate accident wherein the ciaimants’ son Dujram lost his life took place in the year 2002. It has come in the evidence that deceased Dujram at the time of the accident was working as helper in the Truck. It is a matter of common knowledge that the parents in their old age depend wholly on their son for their survival. 9) The cOmpensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just' and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) ‘ The appeal filed by the appellantsi *claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. .The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/— inclusive of 7 subbu interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.3 the Oriental tnsurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1 0,000/~ before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. \o ; u» rew/T’ V§xw#_#..~«#r‘ /, \\ sum \4“";a‘ so] wage sj““a 7 Sd/- Chief JuStice