HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. AppeaKC) No. 441 of 2007 Applicants Claimants 1. Smt. Binda Bai aged 39 years w/o late Tularam 2. Smt. Bhagin Bai aged 60 years mother of late Tularam 3. Ku. Seema aged 20 years d/o late Tularam q^ Respondents Non-claimants 4. Ku. Vandana aged 1 O years d/o late Tularam 5. Triloki Das aged 7 years d/o late Tularam (Mother and natural guardian claimant no.1 on behalf of appellant no. 4 & 5) All above R/o GramSim, P.S. Utai Bhilai, district Durg C.G. VERSUS 1. Ramkumar aged 42 years s/o Kanhaiyal Lal R/o Shakti Nagar, near Pandey Para lake P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg C.G. Office .Address Manager, Durg Sahakari Vipdan Samiti, in front of Dhamdha Naka (F.C.I.) District Durg C.G. (Driver of offending vehicle Truck Reg No. C.G.07/ZB/0604) 2. Manager, Durg Sahakari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, in front of Dhamdha Naka F.C.I. District Durg C.G. (Owner of offending vehicle Truck Reg No. C.G.07/ZB/0604) !t\...^y M,A.C.No.441of2007 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Malviya Nagar Durg district Durg C.G. (Insurance Company of offending vehicle Truck Reg NO.C.G.07/ZB/0604) Mjsc.ABBeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicIe Act. ^•f' Present: Shri D.K. Vishwakarma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Manish Upadhyaya, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER L.. >th (09mAugust,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 Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 135/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.48,00,200/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow; minor children and mother of deceased Tularam, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accidenton 08.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,54,120/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from thedate of filing ofthe claim petition.till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led /•^' tai •-% ^•SSi; 1 '^^ii&Si^^'^ ^ll K J-" ^ ^ 'a'sCT M.A.C. No.441 of 2007 before it held that deceased Tularam diedon account'ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.02.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG07/ZB-0604; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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.3,476/- per month and Rs.41,712/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.41,712/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.27,808/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,808/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,17,120/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.37,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,54,120/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Tularam in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,54,120/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri D.K. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellants ^,.--' . ^•^•^ S t!!-. ^' w'h-..i:'"~~'" ..^''y' '^•vs.-" 4 M.A.C.No.441 of 2007 fc submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,476/- per month only though the gross-salary of the deceased according to his salary ceri:ificate was Rs.5,352/- per month; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,54,120/- only. 7) Shri Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,54,120/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador, also supported the award. 9) Deceased Tularam was aged about 44 years on the date of the accident. He was working as Class-IV employee in Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. The claimants for establishing his salary produced his pay-slips, Ex.P/12, P/13 and P/14 before the Tribunal. The gross salary of the deceased in Ex.P/12 for the month of January, 2005 is Rs.5,352/-, whereas in the pay-slips Ex.P/13 and P/14, for the months of December and Qptober,2004, the gross salary shown is Rs.5,256/-. Thus, it is apparent that the gross salary of the deceased was varying from month to month. The Tribunal apparently has fallen into error in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of his net salary whereas the assessment ought to have been made on the basis of the gross salary, in view of the dictum of the Apex Coyrt in the case of National Insurance n'"" I! 1III '•:S' !f'i M.A.C. No.441 of 2007 Company Limited versus Indira Srivastava and Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/-per annum. 10) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.60,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.40,000/- per annum. 11) The date of birth of deceased Tularam as recorded in the school leaving certificate Ex.P/11 was 01.06.1960 and as such, the deceased on the date of the accident was more than 44 years. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Cprporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41-45 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.5,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to_Uie widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.5,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Tularam in the motor accident. 13) Learned 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 '^fe. '&' M.A.C. No.441 of 2007 interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 14) Considering all 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 to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter,we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.1,20,880/-at Rs.14,120/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.4,54,120/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.14,120/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,880/-. 16) Respondent No.3 .the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.1,20,880/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.14,120/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,880/-) before theconcerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^o subbu