HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 986 of 2010 1. Shiv Kumar Nishad, age 28 yrs, s/o late Beersigh Nishad, 2. Ku. Bhojkumari, age 10 yrs, d/o Shri ShivkumarNishad, 3. Gulab Chand Nishad, age 08 yrs, s/o Shri Shivkumar Nishad, 4. Dumesh Kumar Nishad, age 5 yrs, s/o Shri Shivkumar Nishad. All the above appellant no.02 to 04 are minor and are beingrepresented by the appellant no.01, father in relation, All the above are r/o village Shinghanpur, P.S. Pithora, thasil & distt. Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS 1 Jail Lal Sahu, age 32 yrs; s/o Shri Panchkoud Sahu, r/o. village Shighanpur, P.S. Pithora, tahsil & distt. Mahasamund C.G. (Driver of pick-up Van No. C.G.04/J/7604) 2 Mohit Kumar Sahu,age 35 yrs, s/o Shri Banshilal Sahu, r/o Chowla Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur at present r/o. village Shighanpur, P.S. Pithora, tahsil & distt. Mahasamund C.G. (Owner of pick-up Van No. C.G.04/J/7604) 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Com. Ltd.,through Divisional Office, f& ^y%^.. "r^'^ t 1 'i ^-s% ] .-'-^^ '"^^-ff^^" MAC.No. 986 of 2010 Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. (Insurance Company of pick-up Van No. C.G.04/J/7604) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Aditya Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (13th September, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.99/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Malti Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 08.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,05,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Smt. Malti Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 08.10.2008; the ^ ill^® MAC.No. 986 of 2010 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Pick-up Van bearing registration No.CG- 04-J/7604; as the above offending vehicle Pick-up Van on the date of the accident was insured with the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.2,100/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.2,100/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,01,600/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,05,600/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Smt. Malti Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,05,600/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month and the claimants' dependency at Rs.1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- ;- / MAC.No. 986 of 2010 per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 12 and in awarding only Rs.4,000/- under other heads. 6) Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Pick-up Van, on the other hand, supported the award contended that the compensation of Rs.2,05,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) As learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,100/- per month and the claimants' dependency at Rs.1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- per annum, we have not examined that aspect of the matter. 8) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 9) Deceased Smt. Malti Bai was shown to be 27 years of age in her postmortem report. Claimant No.1 Shiv Kumar Nishad, the husband of dceased Smt. Malti Bai was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident. In our opinion, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. '•-<a<^..,\ /y^^ ^SA 1 MAC.No. 986 of 2010 ^ 10) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/-, assessed by the Tribunal, with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2,85,600/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husbgnd. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,00,600/- as compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Malti Bai in the motor accident. 11) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/-at Rs.10,000/-. 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.2,05,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,00,600/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/-. -^l ^. %? ^.^ ^ MAC.No. 986 of 2010 14) Respondent No.3 the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.95,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi