IN THE HON'BLE HIGH-COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.[C] Z^'^— /^QW- [S.B.] APPELLANT CLAIMANT P. SAYAMMA W/0 LATE P.RAJESHWAR, AGE: 36 YRS, R/0 St.NO.24, BLOCK-1/B, SEC.-6, BHILAI, ^ TAH.& DISTT.: DURG v/s RESPONDENTs l.NARSIH S/0 TIRATH BAGAR,AGE: 31, ^ R/0: St.NO.25, QU.NO.R, B1.NO.-6,SEC.-6, BHILAI, ^" TAH. & DISTT.: DURG. ^). ^ ^••<' ^^ y^ ^ ^' ^ ^ ^^ ^ .^ [DRIVER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE] 2/SM^T.MIRA SAO W/0 SHRI RAMKUMAR SAO, A(3E: 36, R/0: St.NO.20, QU.NO.lA, SEC.-6 BHILAI, TAH. & DISTT. DURG. [OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE] ^ 3.0RIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd. Through: DIVISIONAL MANAGER, Office at: MALVIYA-NAGAR, DURG. [INSURER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE] APPEAL U/S 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD VALUED ATRs. 3,00,000/- ^.^- -\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 237 OF 2008 APPELLANT fclaimantl RESPONDENTS P. Sayamma Versus Narsih & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Amiykant Tiwari, Advocate for appeilant. None for respondent No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patet, Advocates for respondent No. 3. 1. ORDER ;th (Passed on 25ln day of September, 2009) This is a ciaimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation against the award dated 19.09.2007, passed by the VI i Ith Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.19/2007. The claimants, unfortunate widow of deceased P. Rajshekhar Rao, by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act,1988'), claimed Rs.17,27,000/- as compensation for death of her husband against the Driver, Owner & Insurer ofthe offending vehicle (Sumo registration No. CG-07-1938). The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties and the material avaiiabie on record, awarded sum of 'f??. 1,18,000/- as total compensation for the death of P. Rajshekhar Rao in the said accident alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application tili its payment. ^ o Shri Amiykant Tiwari, learned counset appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident took piace in the year 2006 and in view of several pronouncements of Division Bench of this Court, the notional income of deceased ought to have been taken into consideratlon by the Tribunal at Rs. 36,000/- per annum instead of Rs. 15,000/-, and prayed that the income of deceased may be recomputed accordingly. Per contra, Abhishek Sinha, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No. 3/insurance company supported the award and submitted that in view of facts situation of case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal isjust and reasonable. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parities, perused the pleadings and documents and award impugned. The claimant pleaded in her claim petition that the deceased was used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month, but failed to substantiate the same by adducing cogent and dinchjng evidence in this regard, and therefore, the finding of the Tribunai that the claimant failed to prove the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 6000/-, cannot be faulted with. However, as the accident occurred in the year 2006 and in view of several pronouncement of Division Bench of this court and iooking to increase in the cost of living and prices index, and also taking into consideration the effect of Section 163-A(3) of the Act, 1988, in the considered opinion of this court, the notionai income wouid be Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36000/- per annum in ptace of Rs. 15,000/- per annum, and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs re-computation. 8. As age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of accident, therefore, in the facts situation of the case, multiplier 10 would be appropriate. By taking into consideration the notional income at Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 50 percent of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 18,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier with 10, the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,80,000/-, by adding 11,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 9500/- towards other conventional heads as awarded by the Tribunal, total amount of compensation would be Rs. 2,00,500/-. By reducing Rs. 1,18,000/- i.e. the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, Rs. 82,5007- would be the amount of compensation for which the claimant is entitled in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunai. In the results, the appeal is allowed partly. The appetlant is entitled for further sum of Rs. 82,500/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment. The respondent No. 3/insurance company is directed to pay the same within a period of three months form today. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ Sahu