M HI<3HGOt»rrWGMNATTIS©»RHJl Blt.ASPUR DIVIS10NBENGH 60RAM: HON*Bl^^il IWiitf^iyTA, CJ. & HON'BLESNraRANGNAI'KGI^I^^ Misc.ADb^lNQ.781or2@e4 ADpellants Cjajmants 1 •'s •r" c ReSDondents Smt. Siyay^ ^hft^ri, widow ^ Shri Gouri Shanka^ aboyt 21 years, r^sident of C^ No.14, Tata Line, Camp-1, Bhitai, TahsH&Distt.D!urg€C.©.) Sumit Kumar Tiwarit son of lat&^^^^S^ GbuFJs^kar T'iwarl^aged^^^^^^^^^ months, (rninor) throMgd natyral guapdian appellaht Nc^T^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^ Siyavati Ttwart, resiclent of^^^^^^^ t4,Tataline.Cam|1,B^i!ai.'r'ahsft &D}8tt.Dur9(C.G.) f^mkhelawaftTiwari, son ©flateSri Rambisl^ "Tiy^ri, aged^^^a^ years i^dent of Nlls^ &^^^^^^^^^^1^^ BarRula <Slgot61ii)^ ^ Panwar^ ^^ Rewa(M.P.) VERSUS Qm Pral^ish@ IJD^ qf Sldhnath l^hyap, i^»^^ Babuna9ar,Camp-2,Bliilai,Tahsil& 'Distt:':C^B:'^;^..;:^ Preserrtresident14-ffiS3t<hur'shipar^ Bhilal.TahsiI&Distt.C.G. UmeshSmgh.son^Sr'i.R.D.Slngh, resident of Qtr. No.2 F, Street No. 67, Sector 6, Bliilat Nagar, Tahsil & Oistt:Durg(C.G.) The Oriental hTsurance Qo. iAd through the Braroh^^^^ ^ Dakshin Gang^, ^^^ Supela Chowk, Bhitai, distt. Dur@ (C.G.) ^ Miscellaneous Aopeal U/S 173 ofthe Motor Velilcte Act. 1888 Present: Shri T.R. Chandrakar, counset ft^the^a^ ShriVjijayKuroarSahu.counselforTesponderrts No.1-..&~2.l'':,:,'l/^.y.-•.''•- Shri Avinash Mishra, counsel fbr respondent No.3. c c ORDER ,.,, .„' , ;.^'. :-; (14th December, 2010) The fbttowing order of the Court ws® passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal tbr enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Rourth AGlditionat Motor Acctctent Claims Tnbunal^ Durg (for short "the Tribunal') vide awsuxl dated 30.09.2003, passedinClaimCaseNo. 166^001. 2) As again^ the compensation trf 1^.15,6C^OOQ/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfbrtunate widow, mtnor son arrcl fether of deceased Gourishankar Th/vari, by fiting a Glaim pelitton under Section 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act, f©rhis cteath in the motor acciderrt on 12.0S.2000, the Tribunal awareled a total sum -,-^.^._...: •;:•••..1..;,;-1;^.•;/..••,;::''/\1:;.':..^;/',:^1....^..^'::''.-. of Rs.2,75,628/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dateof fllSng of the claim petition tUI the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny ©fthe enitire evidence 1^1 before it held that deceased Gourishankar Tiwari died on accountoftheinjuriessustainedbyhiminthem<^racGfdenton 12.05.^001, the accident occyrred jdue to rash and negligent c c •^ 1S driving of the driver of the offendjng veMfole Truck-Trailor bearing registration No.MPT-9600^ as the above offiencling vehiele Truck- Trailor on the date 6f the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company LJmited and the Insurance Corfipany oould not estabtishany breach ofthe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. ^- 4) As the respondents have not filed any app^it agairast fhe award, the above findings recorded by ttte Tribunal ttave now attained (jnality. 5) The Tribunal assessed ttie income of the deceased at Rs.2.000/- per monfh. By deducting 1/3"' of Rs.2,(XX)/- towards the personal e^enses of the deceased, the claimante' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,^4/- per month and Rs.16,008/- per annum. By multiplyhg the annual dependency of Rs.16,008/- with the multiplter of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,56,128/-. By awar-ding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads and Rs,10,OC%)/- for transportation of the body, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,7i,62^- as compensatton to fhe claimahts fbr the dearth of cteceased Gourishankar Tiwari in the motor accident. The Trtbunal further directed payment of interest on the above ampunt of compensatiorr of Rs.2,75,628/- @ 6% perannum from the date of ffling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri T.R. Chandrakar, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in rvot accepting the ^ c ^ c claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and tn assessing his Sncome at Rs,2,000/- per month only; in seteeting the lower multipller of 16; and in awaFding low compensation of Rs.2,75,628/-only. 7) Shri Avinash Mishra, teamed counsel for respondent N@.3 the Oriental tnsurance Company Limited^ on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the clajmants coutd not establish any definite wv^ regular tncome of deceased Gourishankar Tiwari, the compensation of Rs.2,75,6^/- awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation in the fa^sand circumstancesofthepresentcase. 8) ShrS Vijay Kumar Sahu, leamed counsel for respondente No. 1 & 2 ateoj supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that cteceased Gourishankar Tiwari used td eam Rs.5,000/- per month working as Supervisor in aTransportCompany.theevidenoeledinthatbehalfv^snot of dinching nature. The Tribunal, considering ie suspidous features in the salary certlficate and the fect that in Wie daim petition initiaHy th<^ m(»me of the deceased was pteaded as Rs.2,000/- per month and later on it was interpolated to Rs.5,000/- per month, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month; 10) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmUy in the assessment of the incbme of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. ..-:.L...^t.j.r y c 11) The claimants' dependency. therefore, is^^^^ at fte.16.00()/-perannumbycleducHn9l/3rtof 1^,24,^ thepersonalexpensesofthedece8®ed. 12) The multiplier of 16 seleeted by the Trlbunal considenng that deceased Gounshankar Thwari was aged about 24-2S years on the date of the accident, is somewhat on the l<wer side. In ourppinion,multiplierof17wouldbeappropTlate^^^ recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Venta (Smt) and Others Versus Delhl Transpori Corporatton and another,reportedin^OQ9)eSGC121. 13) By multiplying the annual dependenGy of Rs.t6,OQQ^- v^th themultiptlerof17,thecompensationwori@oyttoRs.2,72,00€)/-. The claimantslare further entitted tb receive f^.§,00()/-1^^ funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate^ and Rs.5,000/- fbr toss of consortlum to the widow. By aGVjng further sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded bythe Tribynal towards transportation^^^o^^^^ the body of the deceased, the clatmants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,97,000/- as compensation for the death of deceasecflSiourishankar Tiwari inthe molor accidenf, 14) Leamed counsel fbr the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible djspute between the parties about the periodforwhiGhtheclaimantsareentitJedtofecelveintereston the enhanced amount ofcompensaUon, the amount of i^erest on the enhanced amount of cdmpensation may be quantified in tWs appeajitsejt c ri. 15) (^onsjdenng all the relevant aspects of th®^^ quariti^ the amourrt of jnteresf^^^^^^o^ compensation ofRs^1,372/-at Rs.3,628/-. 16) R)r the fbregolng reasons, the appeal filed by th@ appenants/ olairnants for enhancement ©f^he Gompensattdn is altowed 1n part. ThecoropenSatjonofRs.2^,628/-a^ theTribunalisenhancedtpRS.2y97,000/-w h^f^ amount of Interest of Rs.3,628/- on the enhanGed amount of compensation of Rs.21,372/-. 17) Respondent No.3 The OrientatlnsuranGe Com^any l.Smited is granted three rnonths' fime for xjepcsiting tte Rs.25,000/- (Rs.21,3?^ tov^rcls^^^^^^^^ w^ <^pensation+ Rs.3,628/-to^^ cmtheenhan^amourrtdfcompensatio^^ the Gonceming Claims Tribynal. w ^ |o order as to co^s. Sd/- . /< Chief Justice / Sd/- ; R.N. Chandrakar Judge jy subbu