iinaf.i •a.Si ,,.,,, tii! COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR oiaimaHi.s 1. 2. 3. Mamta Dewangan, Wd/o Omprakash Devi/anyan, aged about 23 yesrs. Riya Dewangan, D/o late Shri Omprskash Devvangan, aged about 3 years. Raksha Dewangan D/o late Shri Omprakash Dewangan, aged about 1 year (Si No. 2 & 3 are minor through their Mother Mamta Dewangan Wd/o Omprakash Dewangan, R/o Post Office Ward, Ama Talab Road, Dhamtari) 2. 3. Prakash Das, S/o Gopai Das aged about 24 years, R/o Vill. Singarbhatha, Distt. Kanker(C.G.) Radheshyampuri, s/o Dashrathpuri Goswami, R/o Kodabhatha, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Behind Amar TalRies, Dhamtari isc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehicSes Aci Present: Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Shrl Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. ; None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha, tearned counsei for respondisdit No.3. • 1 'IAI W3 ^ !fh (» The foilowina order the Court was passed This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.10.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 142/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughters of deceased Omprakash Dewangan by filing a c!aim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 24.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Omprakash Dewangan died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.08.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehide Jeep bearing regjstration No,MP-25-B/1078; as the above offending vehide Jeep, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company couid ^ not establish any breach of the po!icy conditions, the tnsurance Company was fiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the Income of the deceased at Rs.15,000./- per annum on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the MoSor Vehlcies Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, ihe ciaimants' dependency v/as assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the murtipiier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Ss.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum oi Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,93,( as compensatjon to the claimants for the death of deceased Omprakash Dewangan in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,93,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date o.f actual payment. 6). Ms Sharmila Singhai and Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeilants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptina the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum onlv; and in av/ardina iow compensatlon of Rs.1,93.000/- only. "<t, €BS>^j '•;Sn 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondentNo.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that, the compensation of Rs.1,93.000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Omprakash Dewangan used to earn Rs.150/- per day from hls Kirana Shop, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact, it was not established that the deceased was running any shop at a!l. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 9) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2002 is certainty on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) Considering that deceased Omprakash Dewangan was aged about 28 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easiiy earned Rs.2,000/'- per month even by working as an un-skilied labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation takina the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24.000/- per annum. ird 11) By deducting the usual 1/3ru of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. :3fe n j -"•<^u ^ ^ .«•" if- 12) Considerlng that deceased Omprakash Dewangan was aged about 28 years and his widow Mamta Dewangan was shown to be 23 years of aae, we are of the opinion that multipiier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma another, reported in (2009) S SCC 121, wherein the muitiplier of 17 was prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 13) By multipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000./- for toss of consortium to the widow. The compensation, thus, works out to Rs.2,87,000/-. By adding the further sum of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the damage to the motorcycle of the deceased, the claimants become entitled to receive a totai sum or Rs.2,93,000/- as compensation. 14) Learned counse! for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount ot' compensation may be quantified in this appea! itself. 1 1 paama 15) Considering all the reievant aspects of the matter including the deiay in disposa! ofthe claim petltion 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 compensstion of Rs.1,00,000/- at Rs.11 ,000./-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! fi!ed by the appetiants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- awarded by th.e Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,93,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limlted !s granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. sd/- Chlef Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge