Appellants M.A. No. 894 .of 2003 1 Subhash Chandra Jain, S/o late Shri Mannulal Jain, aged about 55 years Smt. Kiran Jain W/o Subhash Chandra Jain, aged about 48 years Both R/o Saurabh Jain Karuna Hospital Ke Samane, Nandini Road, Durg,_District Durg (CG) Versus Pardeshi Ram S/o Kelwaha Ram aged about 21 years, R/o Charpara Baloda P.S. Akaltara , P.O. Baloda, , Di'SftriQtJé'h‘jQW.(C-G-) (Driver of Jeep MP 26 E/0674) e Bhupendra Kumar Gupta S/o Panchram \Gupta R/o Village D.P.O., Baloda P.S. Akaltara, 'District Bilaspur, “Regd. Owner of.Jeep No. MP 26 E/0673) Oriental Insurance Company City Branch Office Commercial Complex T.P. Nagar, Korba (C.G.) (ln§urerofarJlee.p NO- MP 26 E/0674) ‘ - Appeal under Sectiond73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kamal Nayan ChaturvediffAdvo‘cate"‘for respondent No. 3. —‘ HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, Division Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil ’Kuma Sinha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.L. Jhanwar JJ. 2 MA. No. 894 of 2003 ORDER (24.09.201 0) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) ‘ Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhéncement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 98/2001 'by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Durg, vide awatd dated 23.6.2003. (2) “The appeilants/clairrfants, unfortunate parents of deceased- t Shailen'dra Kumar Jain, filed a Claim Petition Uls 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cla1ming compensation of Rs 42 85 OOOI- for the death of their son In the motor accndent which took place on 4.2.2001, when the scooter, on which, the deceased was traveling was dashed by the offending jeep bearing registration No, MP 26 E/O674 on account of rash‘and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/— per month by running a tent—house and light decoration The deceased was aged about 24 years Though the claimants pleaded such income of the deceased but the eVidence led on that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second ll A Schedule under Sectionw163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The ‘i Tribunal deducted 1/3'd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/— per annum. The Tribunal applied m‘uitipiier Vo’fi‘12‘to'the ‘said annuai oY 3 M.A. N0. 894 of2003 dependency of Rs.10,000/~ and the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.7,000/- under the other heads and the total amount of compensation was'worked to Rs.1,27,000/—. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the dated of filing of the Claim Petition till the date cf actual payment. (3) Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of t the appellants, submits that the Tribunal erred in law in assessing income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought have accept that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/— per month by his tent-house . business. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaturvedil, learned coUnsel appearing on behalf of’respondent No.3/lnsurance Company, opposes these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/— per month by running his tent-house and light decoration business, but no documents were filed to establish such business of the deceased. Even the documents relating to income- tax etc. were also not filed to substantiate such income of the deceased. lt is in these circumstances the Tribunal resorted to the 21 @ M.A. No. 894 0f2003 provisions of Section 163-A and assessed his income on notional basis. We do not find any fauit in' such method adopted by the . Tribunal for assessment of the income of the deceased. The notional income of Rs.15,000/— was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A in the year 1994. Looking to the rise of prices of the Essential Commodities and the cost of living in between 1994 to 2001, the notional income of Rs.15,000/— can be taken as Rs.30,VOOO/- and the amount of compensation should be calculated. We, therefore, propose to re-covmp’ut‘e the compensation on the basis of income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. i i i iI i i i i J i (7) Since the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants/appellants are parents, therefore, on the principles of Szed Basheer Ahamed and Others —Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225, in which, it has been held that the general rule regardingdeduction from the incorneof‘the deceased is 50%, if he is bachelor and one-third if he is married, we deduct 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency is worked out to Rs.15,000/— per annum. The claimants/appellants are parents, therefore, we deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 10 in this matter. By applying the multiplier of 10 to the annual dependency Rs. 15,000/—, the compensation works out to ’Rs‘.1,5o,000/-‘:\By awarding 'Rsi7,000/-‘ Under other permissible heads, as awarded by the Tribunal, the total‘amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,57,000/—. The Tribunal has already 5 M.A. No. 894 of 2003 W\ awarded 1,27,000/—. By deducting this amount from Rs.1,57,000/—, the balance of amount comes to Rs.30,000/-. The appellants/Claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs,3p,000/- as the‘enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased- Shailendra Kumar Jain in the motor accident. (8); To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimants’ appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.3,000/— in this matter. a (9) Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.33,000/— more (Rs.30,000l— as the enhanced._amount of compensation and Rs.3,000/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) which they shall receive from the Insurance Company. (10) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3 is granted three months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. (11) The appeal’filed on behalf of the claimants is allowed to the extent indicated above. (1 2) There shall be no order as to the costs. 7# - I..- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sdl— R.L. Jhanwar Judge