@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. M.A. No. 818 of 2003 APPELLANTS Smt. Geeta Doyle W/o. Late Shiv CLAIMANTS Singh Doyle (wrongly mentioned as Sivrm Singh Doyle), aged 50 years. 2 Rajendra Singh Slo. Late Shiv Singh Doyle (wrongly mentioned as Sivrm Singh Doyle), aged 4O years Both are R/o R.D.A. Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Shankar Khapede S/o Vasudev NON-APPLICANTS ’H’Khapede, 33 Tyears, Truck Tanker Driver, R/o Dally Rajhara, Distt.— Durg 2. Arun Kumar S/o. Ramraj padhyaya, R/o. Main Road, Dally Rajhara, Distr- Durg(C.G.) 3. United lndia insurance Com Ltd Branch Office Rajmal Complex Kamthl Line Rainand Gaon (CG) Through- DIVISlonal Offce Madlna Burlding Jail Road, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Misc. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Appearance Mr Shree Kumar Agrawal Sr Advocate With Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. (C.G.) Mr A L Singraul Advocate forthe appellants ORDER (06.12201 0) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. ”152/2602 by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) vide award dated 8.7.2003. x, l \‘ U ~x 2. MA. No. 818 of 2003 @ (2) The appeHants/claimants, unfortunate widow and major son of deceased— Shiv Singh Doyle, tiled a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,58,860l— for his death in the motor accident which took place on 30.11.2001. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 68 years. He was a pensioner and he was also running’ a Book-Store/Stall on the name of Prachi Book-Store and was earning Rs.5,000/— per month from the said Book—Store. Appellant No.1 contended that she would also be getting the pension which the deceased was getting, and the evidence led about the income from the Book-Stall was not of clinching nature. Therefore, the Tribunal resorted the provisions of 163-A of .the. MotorNehicles Act and on the basis of notional income of Rs.15,000/— held that the deceased must be earning Rs.15,000l— per annum. The Tribunal deducted _1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency‘was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per annum. By applying‘multiplier of 5 to the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/—, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/—. The Tribunal held that appellant No.2 was a major son aged about 40 years‘and was not dependent ashe was working in mining office and he had his own earning, therefore, the‘appellant No.1 alone would be entitled to get compensation. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to appellant No.1 for the death of deceased Shiv §inghnDoyle in thevtmotor accident on 30.11.2001. lt was , directed that respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company shall be liable to pay compensation to appellant No.1. Mr. A.L. Singraul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that this Court has held in many cases that the (3) 3 l MA. No. 818 of 2003 @ i notional income of Rs.15,000/— was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994, therefore, looking to the rise of prices of the Essential Commodities and the cost of living the said income should be held as 30,000/- 2001. Therefore, the compensation should have been determined holding the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/— per annum. He also argued that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under other permissible heads. He prayed for suitable enhancement in amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. in the year (4) On the other hand, Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate: appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/lnsurance Company, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. Ag '(5) We have heard the;learned counsel:fontheaparties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) True that the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earnming Rs.5,000l- per month from. Prachi Book-Stall“. evidence to that effect was produced by them. The Tribunal held that VeVen the tax-returns or sale-tax papers were also not produced by the claimants to establish such income of the deceased: It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal resorted to the'provisions of notiOnal income. -ln the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in such approach made by the Tribunal. :but ..no documentary x- //"a V ‘ } /// 1 0% 4 MA. No. 818 of2003 @ (7) The notional income of Rs.15,000l— was prescribed in the Second Schedule prepared u/s 163-A in the year 1994. Looking to the rise of prices of the Essential Commodities and the cost o_f living in between 1994 to 2001, the notional income of Rs.15,000/— which wa's prescribed in the year 1994 can be taken as Rs.30,000/- in the year 2001, which we have taken in many cases. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation by ’taking the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/— per an'num. E? (s) Since thé'fTribunaI has heidlthét'app'enéht No.2 was-a major son aged about 40 years and he was not dependent on the deceased, therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct 50% from the above annual income towards the personal expenses'Of the deceased. By deducting 50% .i.e’. Rs.15,000/— from Rs.30,000/—, the dependency of appellant No.1 comes to Rs.15,000/— per annum. (9) The deceased was aged about 68 years and appellant No.1 was (aged about 58 years on the date of the accident. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 5 in this matter in view of the dictum * of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. —Vs- Dellii Transgor't' Corgratioh & Anothér, (2009: '6 Scc 121. By applying multiplier of 5 to the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/—, the compensation works out to Rs.75,000/—. By awarding ,further sum of Rs.15,000/-'under other permissible heads, the total amount of compens‘ation works out to Rs.90,000/—. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.50,000/—. By deducting Rs.50,000/— from Rs.90,000/— the difference comes to Rs.40,000/—, which the appellant No.1 is entitled to sum“. a. , V v 5 M.A. No. 818 0f2003 I @ receive as enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased Shiv Singh Doyie in the motor accident on 30.1 1 .2001. (10) To avoid further compiications‘and looking to the delay caused in disposai of the Claim Petition as also the claimant’s appeal and that the insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, ‘which vie quantify as Rs.4,000/— in this matter. (11) Therefore,'the appellant No.1 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.44,000/— more (Rs.40,000/— as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.4,000/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which she shall receive from the United India insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3. (12) The United India Insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. i (13) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be vatti no orders as to the cost. ”J” V j/ie "’”"”"'m’d V ix ' Sdl- a ' Sdk ‘1 ' lR.N. Chandf‘akar Sunil _ Kumar Sinha . I L .y ‘ judge Judge » 3 tr