HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 132 of 2007 Appellants Ciaimants Respondents 1. Smt. Pushpa Bai, wd/o late Murari Lal Kumbhkar, aged about 2) years, caste Kumhar. 2. Minor Ku. Kiran, d/o late Murari Lal Kumbhkar, aged about 3 months, caste Kumhar. Through natural guardian & mother Smt. Pushpa Bai wd/o late Murari Lal Kumbhkar. Both r/o Ramnagar, Sikotabhatha, Potice Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tehsil & distrfct Durg C.G. VERSUS 1. Pawan Sahu, s/o late Shri Faguram, aged about 35 years, r/o near Laxminarayan Mandir, Polsai Para, Durg C.G. (Dmer of Mini Bus bearing regd. No. C.G. 04/E 042)) 2. T. Apparao s/o T. Ramarao, R/o B.M.Y. Charauda, distrtet Durg C.G. (Owner of Mini Bus bearing regd. No. C.G. (WE 0420) 3. National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Second Floor, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, P.B. No. 122, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer Company of Mini Bus bearing regd. No. C.G. 041E 0420) MjsCsApDeal under Sectimi 173 of MotorVehteles Act. ^ t'. < cv Present: Shri Jttendra Gupta, counsel for theappeltants. Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for respondent No,1, Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel forrespondent No.3. ^ ORDER (06th Aprjl, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal Tor enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 3.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No.01/20}6. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs.29,89,000/- claimed by the appeltants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughter of deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar, by fillng a claim petition under Section 1 of the Motor Vehtetes Act, for his death on 13.11.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,000/- 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 Murali Lal Kumbhkar died on 13.11.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.11.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.04-E/0420; as the above offending vehicte Minlbus on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poticy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensatton to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against fhe award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained flnality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceas«l at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3"' of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased.'the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,04,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.10,00)/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,000/- as compen^tlon to the claimants for the death of deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,0(W- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the clatm petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellanfs submitted that the Tribunal has en-ed in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing hls income at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,(XX)/- per annum only; and in awarding lowcompensation of Rs.2,64,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, teamed counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,64,00}/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Santosh Yadu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Pawan Sahu, the driver of the offending vehfcle Minibus, also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as Cable Operator and Tailor.the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinchlng nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approachofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunalat Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar, on the date of the accident, was aged about 24 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily eamed Rs.70-75/- per day Intheyear. 2005 even by working as an unskitled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12) By deducting the usuai 1/3rlt of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 13) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar was aged about 24 yeara on the date of the accidentand his widow Smt. Pushpa Bai was shown to be 20 years of age in the claim petition, in our opinion, is appropriate. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. By adding the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and awarding further sum of Rs.5,(XX)/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss of estate; and Rs;5,(XX)/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimants become entttled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,37,000/- as compensation Tor the death of deceased Murari Lal Kumbhkar In the motor accident. 15) Leamed 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 intereston the enhanced amount of compensation <nay be quantified !n this appeal itself. ^ 16) Considering dl 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 tobe blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,CX)0/- at Rs.7,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appetlants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,64,(X)0/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,37,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the National tnsuranee Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.73,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on theenhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- CMef Jusdce Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge padma