HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE^BENCH: HQN'jBLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.(C) No. 166 of 2010 Smt. Rajbati and others. Versus Sunil Kumar Robinson and others. ORDER Pronouncement oforder /0.09.2010 ^-^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge fo.09.2010 r- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, J. Appellants Claimants RESPONDENTS Driver Owner Insurer M.A. (C) No. 166/2010 1. Smt. Rajbati, aged about 40 years, W/o late Ramoram Dugga, 2. Dhansingh, aged about 6 years, S/o late Ramoram Dugga, 3. Dhanaji, aged about 4 years, S/o late Ramoram Dugga. No.2 and 3 being minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Rajbati, aged about 40 years, W/o late Ramoram Dugga, All by caste Gond, R/o village Aalkanhar, Post Chargaon, Thana Koylibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. U.B. Kanker. versus 1. Sunit Kumar Robinson, R/o late Hospital Colony, Thana, Durgukondal, Distt. U.B. Kanker. 2. Ishwar Sonkar, S/o M. Sonkar, R/o Village, Thana and Tahsil Charama, Distt. U.B. Kanker. 3. Nationai Insurance Com. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Above Central Bank, Near R.M.8.0ffice, Jagdalpur. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (Passedon^.09.2010) Appellants - Rajbaiand herchildren are seeking enhancement of compensation passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bhanupratappur, Dist. North Bastar Kanker in claim case No. 36/2009 under award dated 18.11.2009 in a death case. •/'":. :..""^:l ''^. .^. •.e', ^ •% 21^^./ I IS^^ •A . P-. w ^.'-^ 2. As against the compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- claimed by the appellants by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Ramoramin a motor accident on 5.6.2009 at 4.00 p.m., the Claims Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.2,23,000/- to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. The Claims Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that the deceased died in motor accident on 5.6.2009; accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver oftheoffending vehicle bearirig No.C.G.19 T-0224; as the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 - the National Insurance Company Limited, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. As the respondents had not filed any appeal against the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, those findingsof the Tribunal have attained finality. 5. The Claims Tribunal accepted the contention ofthe appellants and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per monthand Rs.24,000/- assuming that the deceased must be getting work for 22 days. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.16000/-. Relying upon the documents i.e. merg intimation Ex.P.8 and autopsy report Ex.P.9 produced by the claimants, wherein the age ofthe deceased was mentioned as 50, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 to the dependency of Rs.16,000/- and the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,08,000/-. This apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- and thus the total compensation was worked by the Tribunal is Rs.2,23,000/-for the death of Ramoram in the motoraccident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 50 years whereas it ought to have taken at 44 years, according to the evidence. Multiplier of 15 ought to have been used by the Tribunal instead of using multiplier of 13. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant urged that compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. ^\ 4. Qn the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.S/insurance company argued in support of the impugnedaward and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation; age of the deceased taken by the Tribunal as 50 years based on the merg intimation and post-mortem is also proper and multiplier of 13 used by the Tribunal is on higher side whereas it should be 11. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record of ClaimsTribunal and impugned order. 6. Sofar as the age of the deceased, Rajbati A.W.1 has stated that the age of the deceased was 44 years on the date of accident. Though she pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 44 years, but no documentary evidence in support of oral evidence was adduced, therefore, the Tribunal based on the documents i.e. merg intimation Ex.P.8 and autopsy report Ex.P.9 produced by the claimants considered the age of the deceased as 50 years. Thus, the Tribunal has not erred in determination ofthe age ofthedeceased. 7. As regards the income of the deceased, admittedly the deceased working as a labour and as per confention of Rajbati A.W.1 the deceased was getting Rs.100/- perday. The Tribunal has held that the deceased must be getting work for 22 days in a month and has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 1 feel that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly incomeof the deceased as above because in normal circumstances, in village, a labourer gets work for not less than 26 days in a month. Taking note that the deceased mustbe getting work for not less than 26 days in a month, the compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context ofthe fact that the deceased was getting work for 26 days in a month, in my opinjon, is somewhat on the lowerside and desen/es to be enhanced to some extent. However,the learned Tribunal used multiplier of 13, which 1 am of view, is on higher side. 8. Looking to the above broad features and facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, further award of P-- ^ Rs.41,000/- inclusive of interest component would make the compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- as just and proper in the present facts and circumstances ofthecase. 9. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The appellants / claimants areawarded further sum of Rs.41,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.2,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The National Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.41000/- with the concerned Claims Tribunal. No order asto costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge