“pg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON’BLE sHR: $UNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. Misc. Apneal No. 112 of 2002 1 Smt Mina Bai. widow of Late Anand Singh Rajput, aged abcut 25 years 2 Eknath @ Vicky, S/o Late Anand Singh Rajput, aged abaut 3 years (Miner), through Local Guardian Mother Smt Mina Bai, wi’o Late Anand Singh Rajnut 3 $mt Ramhinbai, Wlo Shanker Singh, aged about 52 years 4 Shanker Singh, $lo Sonsingh, aged abeut 55 years 5 Kumari Renuka, Daughter of late Anand Singh Rajput aged about 3 months (Minor), through Local Guardian Mother Smt Mina Bai, W/o Late Anand Singh Raj'put Ali Rio Village Mudhipar, Post Manghata, Thana : Somni, Diett Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) [\‘r Versus Responden‘ 1. Ramadhar, Slo Ramvilas, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Post on-Claimants Mudhipar, Thana Somni Distt Rajnandgaon (Driver of Truck No.MP—29—D/0028) 2. Smt Mohini Devi Khandelwal, Wlo Kanhalyalal Khanclelwal, aged about 50 years, R/o Ganjline, Rajnandgaon, (Owner of Truck No.MP-29—D/0028) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Kamtiline! Rajnandgaon, through Divisional Office, Maiviya Nagar, Durg Tahsil and Distt : Durg, Insurance Co. of Truck. N v-%: @ Misceiianeous appeal under Section 173 of the Motar Vehicle Act, 1988 Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri SRJ Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (16m April, 2010) 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, Rajnandgaon, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.09.2001, passed in Claim Case No.1 10/2000. ' 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,01,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Anand'Singh Rajput @ Munna, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.06.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.98,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of nling 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 Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna died on account of the injuries sustained’by him in the motor accident on 11.06.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing @ registration NoMP-29-D/0028; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie 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 tinatity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.700/- per month. By deducting Rs.200/— per month towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.6,000l- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.78,000l-. By awarding further sum 'of Rs.20,00D/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum of Rs.98,000l— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.98,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.700/— per month only; in selecting lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.98,000/- only. «J»! @ 7) Shri BD Guru and Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Ieamed counsel for respondent No.3, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month by working as helper on the truck and was also getting Rs.50/— per day as daily allowance, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. For the reasons best known to the claimants, the employer of the deceased was not examined before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.2,000/— per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7OD/- per month is‘ certainly on the lower side and requires re—consideration. 11) Deceased Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. The unfortunate accident wherein deceased Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna lost his life took place in the year 2000. ln our opinion, the deceased could have "QG @9 easily earned Rs.50-S5/- per day even by working as an un -skilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1 8,000l- per annum. , 12) By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.1 8,000/— towards personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.12,000l- per annum. 13) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, parents and children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the case. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1 2,000i- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to get Rs.5,000l- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000l- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000l— for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants: thus, become entitled to receive atotal sum of Rs.1 ,95,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Anand Singh Rajput @ Munna in the motor accident. 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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. 16) Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the lnsurance 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.97,000/- at Rs.8,000I-. / a; 7’. " 1‘7) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.98,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.1,95,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/—. 18) Respondent No.3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.1,05,000/— (Rs.97,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000l- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,0DDI-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. 19) No order as to costs. L i . Sd/ Sdl- N 7 ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice i. Judge padma