IIGH OF CHHATTiSGARH AT riiuiQinM RCMnu Li?SVSOa%ifiv O^E^^Fi GUI ION'BLE SKi ~'n f f^, -^?.Se!. 'ji.w.aB stfc'ws ,^|yi.^°%j-<6. ^SiE'Si'SP^Li Ga'adhar Rsm S/o Lats MsKhsn •-tfvi^/^ •^i's.f^t i^- £~£^'i-^.I's:'^ ^/"•*- s^t5U a'^'vyi l«;v.? V^CE.SO ("'s^''E?~[/^F'/^'?'i"i RsE ^A^r^ f-^3ts's:r^?'*'sr •>^i i&i EU^ Ul^ 1 OCSE V y.' ^ <.3fiKJ!£.!-«t.Et€ii {i'^e.Hi, CTUS;U CS.^^^Ui -^U V^CS.ES <«^,fnh^n^l|/ ^ s l^**^./^,-/ S^? ^ f-\ ?^-2 ^*i 1'n ^U^/•*( V tnrf -"r ?"-^ EjespaK Kuma' s/o uiaiaanar Ksrn t^^.^-.f^^y r\s3nV¥f5s , ^,^_^i ,.;, .•3 ffl -,fm/~y: ;y ^uvut ?o vesi ^^%nr^rb^^r^t .sg: ^•5S.ibFA^FiJA.g_St£-tAa*.^ J'-fU! t-'^KSU U^l [(.© Sukhamat Bai W/o La!e Makhan La!, aaed about 75 yesrs A!i ississUyHi. Ul Villaae Bsndrachua, Pollcs Stafjon li^^Hi3riHirl ni?^trlN' nh^mstrl /CG^ iV EC'U&E s^'-i . L-^i'SLi tfc»t. Lrf'! ECAi i ES.iiit S \''<^~-^:f _f Versus Pramoci Kumar Sahu S/o 1_i/»^tff^^-x i^h/*^ L-hj*li 1^'fc tf^i h*/^ £r^ N"^ ^*M < nai s^i i^J-i ic;l IUS a o<si iu 2 Harishchandra Saiiu S/o Govind Sshu P-nt^ Resldsnt -ai Viilaae bri31SmUnQI. hOIICs oISTtOH Maaarlod. District Dhamatri (CG) The Orienta! insurance Con'pany Limited, Near Adarsh Ba! Vidya Mandir, Distrlct - Dhamtari (CG) •rt; B<K^ tf^. r^-^ Tt"; ,<^S ^ F1?^?% ^^L^ ^ E?^y^iS^^-I F S^i^-rf'&t^ ^^^±^^'5^J*>t.?/l t^ *?'<T^. ^E^ ^ IVI^iTiOi'^HOUiTI 01 ^4PDSiSE UHy^r SS£CliOII 'U'O 01 il! Vehicle Act Shri Shivendu Pandva. counsel forthe appeHants. Shri PP Sahu. ir rssDGndsnts Nc.1 Mn.1 & 2. Shri BD Quru and Shri Raiendra Tripatni, counsi »'/">.<'"?P*'!'^:?^^;^.-^^' >S-'/^ ^ i^isyy'E iU^> a i^u.i^. ^ :th The followina order of the Court Vi?as Dassed by This is claimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribuna! Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (henceforth, "the Tribunai") vide award dated 28.02.2005 passed in claim case No.491/2004. 2) The claimants, unfortunate parents, younger brother and grandmother of deceased Lakhnu Ram clalmed compensation of is. 11,40.000/- bv fiiina a claim petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 31.05.2004 when he was dashed by the offending vehicle jeep bearing registration No.CG-05-ZA-2153 resuStlng in his instantaneous death on the spot Itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Lakhnu Ram was aaed about 22 years and used to earn Rs.180/- per day as labourer. 3) The owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle jeep contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea thst deceasecf Lakhnu Ram himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer took the further plea that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driying license and the jeep was being plied in breach of the policy condltions. 4) The claimants examined AW/1 Gajadhar Ram and AW/2 Deewan Singh Sahu in support of their claim whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle jeep did not examlne any sn rebuna!. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutinv of the evidence led before it held that deceased Lakhnu Ram died on account of the iniuries sustained bv him in the motor accident on 31.05.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and nealiaent drivina of the driver of the offending vehicle jeep; as the offending vehicie jeep on the date of the accident was insured with Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribuna! assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notiona! Income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3ra of Rs.15,OQO/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitiplylng the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/-. By awa'rding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1.15.000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Lakhnu Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of Rs.1,15.000/- @. 6% per annum from the date of fsiing ofthe claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 7) sh.ri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trlbunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessina his income a$ Rs. 15.000/- per annum oniy: and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,15,000/- only. 8) Shri BD Guru and Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for rsspondent No.3 - Oriental insurance Companv on the other hland supportedthe award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Lakhnu Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31.05.2004: the driver of the offending vehicle i.eep v/as responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offendlng vehicle was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are not under challenge before us in this appeal. That apart, these findings, now, have attained finality, as the respondents have not filed any appeal aaainst the award. We, therefore, affirm the abcve findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Lakhnu Ram used to earn Rs.180/- per day as labourer, but the evidence led in that behatf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the 5 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.15,000/-per annum requires re-consideration In view of the increase in prices of the essentiai commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and 2004. 12) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act In the vear 1994. If the increase in the prices of the essentlal commodities and the cost of living during the period between the year 1994 and 2004 is taken into account, the notiona! income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re- compute the compensatlon takinR the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 13) As deceased Lakhnu Ram was un-married on the date of the accident and would have been married in due course and thereafter his contributlon to the parents and other members of the familv v.?ould have been substantially reduced, we cteem It proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- perannum. 14) Considering that claimants 1 & 2 are parents of deceased Lakhnu Ram and No.3 is his younger brother whereas No.4 Is his grandmother, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 1 O would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of IV!unic'iDal CorDoration of Greater Bombav Vs Laxman Iver and^nother, reported in (200318 SCC-731. ia, rniimito ,-S-W«3^ 15) By multiptying the annuai dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multip'ier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs, 1,80,000'-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The ciaimants, thus 'oecome ed to receive a totai sum of Rs.1,90.000/- as comoensation for the death of deceased Lakhnu Ram in the motor 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 appellants / claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest o.n the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appea! itseSf. 17) Considering al! the relevant factors including the delay in the dlsposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance companv alone is not to be blamed for the delay, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- at Rs.10,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensaSion Is altowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/-, with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation Rs.75,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3- The Orlental Insurance Company Limited is aranted three months' time for deoositine the tota! sum of •HB1—? '.a f Rs.85,000/- (Rs.75,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/-) before the concernina Claims Trlbunal. ?0) No order as to costs Sd/- GhiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge paama