AfJR, HIGH COURT OF cHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR BMSEON BENCR MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH!CLES ACT. Present : Shri JA. Lohani, counsei feri’ne appeiianf. Nene fer respondents N0. 1' and 2. Snri H.B. Agrawai, Senior Counsel with Shri AL. Singraul, counse! for respondent No.3. oRoER ‘ rzr‘h Jory, 2999} The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: \ Coram : HGN‘BLE $E-iRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HOM’QLE SER! SUML‘ KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 445 0f 2&6 AFPELLANT Smt. Shanti Bai, Age—48 Yrs. Wfo {CLAEMANE Late devendra Singh Rai, R/o vmage-Dhansir, P.S. & Tahsil Biiaigarh, Disitl Raipur, (C.G.). Versus Q, RESPGNDENT§ 1. Balajee, Age— 33 years. S/o {Nan-Applécants) Janardan Mushne, By Caste Yalam Redijy, Rio :— Taiuka, Tahsii & distt. Lattur (MH) (Owner of Truck No. MH. 14/Vl- 4815). 2‘ PD. Patei, S.N.O.- 240/C-1. R/o Near Laxmi Saw Mm, B.P. Road Chennai. Dist. Pune (MH) (Dfiver of Truck No. M.H. MN!— 4815). 3. United indie insurance Com. Ltd. through Divisinai Office lnfront of Ketchari Chowk, Reipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (ins. Cam. of Truck Ne. MH. MAI/4815). This is claimants’ appeai for enhancement of ihe compensaticm awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Ctatm‘s Tribunal; Mahasamund (for shod; ‘thg Tribunal’) vide award dated 24.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.?8l2005. 2) Appeltant/ ciaimant Smtr Shanti Bat, unfortunate mother of deceased Gourishankar ctaimed compensation of Rs.24,20,00D/~, by fiiing a claim petition under $ection 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.12.2004, when he was dashed by the offending vehicie Truck bearing registration No.MH-14V/4815, resutting in muitipie serious injuries to ‘Gourishankar, who succumbed to those injuries during the course or” his treatment in the Hospital. The ciaimant further pieaded that her son Gourtshankar’used to earn Rs.4,000]— per month from his Generat Store. 3) The owner and driver of the offending vehicie Truck did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. 4) The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased himseif was responsible for the accident; the driver of the Truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the Truck was being piied in breach of the poticy conditions. 5) The ciaimant examined AWI Shanti Bat, AW2 Tikararm AW3 Bhuri Bai, AW4 Durpat Slngh Rat and AWS Subhash in support of her claim. The insurer of the offending vehicte Truck, however, did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence fed before it held that‘deceased Gourishankar died on account of the injurées sustéined by him in the motor accident on 23.12.2004; the accident occuryed due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck; as the offending vehicie Truck, on the defe of the accident, was insured with the United India lneurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to ihe ciaimant. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at 323.90% per month. By deducting i/3r" of Rs.900/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimant’s dependency was assessed at Rs.600/— per month and Rs.?,200/~ per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of RsKZGOI- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.57,600/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2;000/— towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.59,600/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her son Gourishankar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amotmt of compensation of Rs59,.6OQ/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiit the date of actuai payment. 8) Shri JA. Lohani‘ learned counsel for the appeilant submitted a that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the ciaimant’s evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.900/~ per month oniy; in seiecting tower muttiplier of 8; in not . i " ii g 1 awarding any sum towards loss'of estate; and in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.59,600/— oniy. 9) \ Shri H.B. Agrawai, Iearned Senior Counsei for respondent No.3 the United india insurance Company Limited, on the other hand; supported the award and contended that the Tribunai has awarded just and proper compensation of Rs.59,600!— to the ciaimant as the claimant could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by her in the claim petition. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Gourishankar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.12.2004 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Truck are based on the evidence of the witnesses examined by the claimant before the Tribunai. That apart, these findings are not under chalienge before us in this appeal. We; therefore; affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 11) The insurer's liability to pay compensation to the claimant is based on the contents of the insurance Poiicy issued by the insurance Company for the offending vehicle Truck. i2) True, the ciaimant pleaded that deceased Gourishankar, used to earn Rs.4;ODO/- per month by running a General Store, but no cogent and reiiabie evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above fact; We, therefore, do not find any fault iri‘the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimant‘s evidence about the income of the deceased. r/n rr, a 13) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.900/— per month is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 14) The Tribunal while discarding the claimant’s evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 15) The notional income of Rs.15,000/— per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Gourishankar lost his life took place in the year 2004. lf the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2004, the year of accident in the present case; are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/— prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.36;000/- per annum. 15) As deceased Gourishankar on the date of the accident was unmarried and after his marriage his contribution to the mother would have been reduced substantially; as there were only two members in the family dependent on the income of the deceased, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.36;000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The claimant’s dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.1 8,000i— per annum. \\_t, fi 17) Considering that appenant/ ciaimant Shanti Bai, the mother of deceased Gourishankar was found to be aged about 5§ years by fhe Tribunai, the multiplier of 8 seiected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1l8,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs.1,44,000/—. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/— towards loss of estate. The claimant. thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,54,000/- as compensation for the death of her son Gourishankar in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimant is 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. 20) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Gourishankar lost his life took place in the year 2004; the claimant tiied the claim petition in the year 2005; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2005; the appellant! claimant filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finally decided in the ‘year 2009. Considering ail the relevant factors inciuding the delay in disposai of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the i L deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amcunt of compensation of Rs.94,400/— at Rs.10,600/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, t‘ne appeai filed by the appellantf claimant for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.59,600/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,54,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,600/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,400/-. 22) Respondent No.3 the United tndia insurance Company Limited; is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/— (Rs.94,400/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,600/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs‘94,400/-) (\ before the concerning Claims Tribunal. * 23) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice L: \, / sdi 5mm Kumar 5m“? subbu