HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE^ENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. Appellants/ Respondents M.A.tCl. No.481/2008 Smt. Triveni Bai and others. Versus Balluram and others. ORDER Pronouncement of order ^ .06.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge •..^^•--, ..^"^ iti^^ ^.o^ ^i^^^' ^ ^^^ ^as^^ HIGH CQURT^)F CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar, J. M.A.(Cl. No. 481 of 2008 APPELLANTS RespQndents 1. Smt. Triveni Bai, Wd/ o Derharam Chandrakar, aged about 36 years, 2. Khuleshwar, S/o Late Derharam Chandrakar, aged about 19 ye^rs, 3. Ku. Rukhmani, D/o Late Derharam Chandrakar, aged about 14 years, 4. Ku. Yogeshwar, S/o Late Derharam Chandrakar, aged about 10 years No.3 85 4 are minors through natural guardian mother Triveni Bai, Wd/o Derharam Chandrakar, All Permanent Residents of Village Litipur, P.S. Pipariya, Tahsil Kavardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus 1. Balluram, S/o Maniram Sahu, aged about 33 years, Driver, Dhani Travels Bus No. C.G. - 10- ZB-1142. 2. Dhaniram, S/o Falitram, Caste- Satnami, aged about 40 years, Vehicle-Owner, Dhani Travels, BusNo.C.G.10-ZB-1142. Both R/o Village Rabeli, P.S. Pipariya, Tahsil Kavardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) •^-"''-^ .^ -s- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Basant Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.l 8& 2. Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on 2.^.06.2010) This appeal arises out of order dated 5th January, 2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 21/2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded to the claimants a total sum of Rs.5,63,000/- as compensation in case of an accidental death of the deceased Derharam 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 27.02.2007 deceased Derharam was going to village Litipur on his motorcycle. When he reached the village Vodiya, respondent No.l, who was driving the Bus bearing registration No. C.G.10 ZB 1142, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle driven by the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in Bemetara Hospital for treatment. Ultimately, during treatment Derharam succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act?) before the Claims Tribunal claiming coinpensation ofRs.45,40,000/-. 4 . The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Derharam died on account of the serious injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus; assessed the income ofthe deceased af 66,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 towards personal - 3 - expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs.44,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.44,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.5,28,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,000/- towards other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,63,000/- as compensation. The^ Tribunal further directed payment of interest at 8% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.5,63,000/- from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization. 5. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that he would confine his argument only on the question of multiplier. He argued The Tribunal in paragraph 21 of the impugned order has considered the age of the deceased between 40 to 45 at the time of accident. If that be so, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 12 whereas the correct multiplier should be at 15. On this point, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another^ 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). 6. Shri Basant Dewangan and Shri A.K.Athaley, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Although the Triveni Bai A.W.l led evidence regarding income of the deceased but no document to that effect has been filed which led the Tribunal to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.66,000/- per year. By deducting l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal has worked out the annual income of the deceased at Rs.44,000/-. I am of the view tl^at the Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual income of the deceased. (-t- 8. As regards the multiplier of 12, the Tribunal has certainly fallen into error in applying the lower multiplier of 12. Deceased Derharam's age was between 36 to 40 on the date of accident, as fbced by the Tribunal. The proper multiplier would be 15, in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra) wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36 to 40 years. 9. On a perusal of the computation of the compensation made by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the figure of Rs.5,28,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal by multiplying annual dependency of Rs.44,000/- with the multiplier of 15 ought to have been Rs.6,60,000/-. 10. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the above mentioned dictum of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to get compensation ofRs.97,000/- more in addition to the compensation of Rs.5,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 12. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Derharam lost his life, took place in the year 2007; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2007; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2008 and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the year 2008 and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2010. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact •fl ^-s^^ -r- that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, I quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.97,000/- at Rs.15000/-. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.5,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,60,000/- with further quantified interest of Rs.15,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/-. 14. Respondent No.3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.97,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.1,12,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. l- i Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge