•!--. tf 2011 1 Brihaspati Bai, aged about 21 years, wife of Parmanand 2 Ramkhilawan Lahre, son of Nanku 3 Anli aged about 6 months, son of Parmanand Lahre, through naturai ;uardian Brihaspati Bai Lahre AII residents of viliaae Station Pamgarh, district Janjgir, Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 Satwinder Singh Gandhi, son of Triiok Singh Gandhi, resident of viliage Pamgarh, district Janjgir-Champa, CG Rajju, son of Bhagirathi, caste Satnami, residence of Akaitara, District Janjgir Champa, CG The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 450900 Korba, CG Sada Compiex Transport Nagar, 173 of iresent : Shri Om P Sahu, counsel for the appellants. • Shri Deepak Gupta, counssi for respondent No.3. 'he foliowina order ths t Wi issed by Ln]l ^juit'B.iysi^ /^"%'.rl!\^ j & " "i; I 1 1. -^J/ ^y MACNo.869 of 2010 'his is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award a'aled 28.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.38/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the appeiiants/clalmants, unfortunate widow, minor son and father of deceased Parmanand by filing a claim petltion und.er Section 166 of the Motor Vehic'es Act for his death in the rnotor accident on 01 dat< i8i .05.2008, the Tribunal award'ed a tota! sum of Rs.1,77,000/- compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidencs before it held that deceased Parmanand died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01 .05.2008; the accident occun'ed due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.CG-11 ZA''0162; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the Nevv' India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the abovs findings recorded by the Tribunal have novi' attained finality. MACNo.869 of 2010 ^l 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/-'towards the personal expenses of the deeeased, t'ne claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.10,000/-- with the multiplier of 17, compensatlon was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By avifarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heaa's, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Parmanand in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed 'paymenS of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,77,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date o'f the filing of the claim petltion tjll the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Om P Sahu, 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.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensatiQn of Rs.1 ,77,000/- only. Gupta, iearned counsei for respondent No.3 the New India insurance Company Limited, the insurer oft'ne offending the other hand supported the av-.'grd and i' ^' <w>i venicie contended that the compensation of Rs.1,77,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. MACNo.869 of 2010 ^ 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Parmanand used to earn Rs.1,08,000/- per annum as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was ted before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. In this state of evidence, we do any faui.t in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ci svidence about the income ofthe deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal in the year 2008 at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionai income is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) Considering that deceased Parmanand was aged about 22 years as heid by the Tribunal, he could have, in our opinion, easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled Sabour in the year 2008. We therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- psr month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 11) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency is 'assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 12)' By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1 6,000/- with the multiplier of 17, selected by t'ne Tribanai, the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to recelve Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of ""-^;^< MACNo.869 of 2010 q^ Rs.2,87,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Parmanand in the motor accident. 13) Learned counse! for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any posslble 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 imount of compensation may be-quantified in this appeal itself. 14) Consldering ali the relevant aspects of the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- at Rs.11,000./-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the New india Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rs.1,10,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the-enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,21,000/-) before the concernina Claims Tribunal. Mr\ nrrliar a<a f( ^ i'liU VI USE dS LU i/U^i^. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge