tt i n^^i'"VS-., W ;1 '^y[^ 9 ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDF(AKAR, J, Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C)No. 227 of 2006 1. Peela Bai w/o Shri Ghurau Ram Gond aged about40 years, 2. Ghurau Ram s/o Shri Sunhar Gond aged about 42 years. Both are residence of Goverdhan Tambapara Kanker, Tahsil and distt. Kanker C.G. VERSUS 1. Abdul Hakim s/o Subrati Khan r/o. Risaipara ward Dhamtari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari C.G. 2. Prafulla Tiwari s/o. C.B. Tiwari, r/o. Nagarpalika Colony Dhamtari, Tahsil & distt. Dhamtari C.G. 3. The New India Insurance Company, Ltd. G.E. Road, Bhilai, disft. Durg C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vikas Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel fpr respondent No.3. ORDER (22nd March, 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.09.2006, passed in Claim CaseNo. 142/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,25,000/- daimed by the appellants/ claimants unfortunate parents of deceased Banshiram Gond by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of- the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within SOdays ofthe passing ofthe award. . 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Banshiram Gond died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.02.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.A.P.11C/7788; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India 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) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income. prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death oftheir son Banshiram Gond in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- @6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has errgd in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased cind in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- perannum only; in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- only; and in directing only conditional payment of interest. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand,' supported the award and contended that the compensation of 1 Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Banshiram Gond used to earnRs.3,500/- per month by working as helper in the Truck, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. AW1 Ghurau Ram father of deceased Banshiram Gond stated that his son used to earn Rs.3,500/- as salary and Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance whereas claimants' other witness AW2 Dwarakaram Bhaskar stated that deceased Banshiram Gond was getting only Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. 9) Even assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum as stated by claimants' witness AW2 Dwarakaram Bhaskar, the claimants' dependency* would not be more than Rs.18,000/- per annum as 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the fact that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamedand others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2- Supreme Court Cases 225; as the claimants are. parents of the deceased the appropriate multiplier would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-; by adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded the same amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 10) Nevertheless, the Tribynal has certainly erred in directing only conditional payment of interest to the claimants in the event" of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award. 11) Shri Raj Awathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited during the course of hearing pointed out that the Insurance Company in fact deposited the amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of- the award. The claimants thus, have been deprived ofthe amount of. interest on the awarded amount ofcompensation. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we award Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the period from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the amount of compensation by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, @ therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company* Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. --—- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Ransnath Caandrakar padma