HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench .<^ ^ Coram: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. APPELLANTS M.A. (C)No. 912 of 2011 1) Mohd. Shabbir Qureshi, aged about 25 years, s/o. Kasim Qureshi. Respondents 2) Shabao? Qureshi, aged about 26 years, d/o. Kasim Qureshi. 3) Mohd. Kasim Qureshi, aged about 64 years, s/o. Late Yashim Quareshi. 4) Smt. Shahida Qureshi, aged about 58 years, w/o. Kasim Qureshi. Alt residents of Purana Bus Stand, Machhli Market, Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, CG. (Claimants). Vs. 1) I.C.I.C.I., Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Station Road, Dhanraj Compound Durg, District Durg, CG (Non- applicantNo.1). 2) Manoj Sonboir, aged about 38 years, s/o. Shri Protam Sonboir, Driver, r/o. Pachripara, Ward No.24, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (CG) (Non-applicant No.2). 3) M/s. Alfi Transport F, Partner, ^iipfirm partner. A. Usman Qureshi, aged about 36 years, s/o. Shri Riyajuddin Qureshi. B. Ejajuddin Qureshi, aged about 36 years, s/o. Shri B.D. -Qureshi. C. Mohd. Asfak Qureshi, aged i S ''•iSiiUgft i -V about 28 years, s/o. Mohd. Salim Qureshi. D. Mohd. Jakir Qureshi, aged about 33 years, s/o. Shri Mohd. Majid Qureshi. All A.B.C. & D are residents of Sahu Sadan Kalabadi Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, CG. (Non-applicant No.3). (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) Present : Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.l/I.C.I.C.I Lombard Generat Insurance Co. Ltd. ORDER (8-11-2011) Per N.K. Agarwal, J; This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30-7-2011 passed in Claim Case No. 95/2008. As against the compensation of Rs.45,01,000/- claimed by the unfortunate brother, sister and parents of deceased - Samir Qureshi by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for his death in the motor accictent 17-4-2008, th.e Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. The Tribynal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held: coltision took plaCe between Motor-cycle bearing registration No. CG- 1 08/F - 9026 and Mini-bus bearing registration No. CG-07/C- 5774; the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Minibus bearing registration No. CG-07-C-5774 by its driver i.e. respondent No.2/ Manoj Sonboir; Samir Qureshi died on account of injuries sustained Fn the said accident; respondent No. 1/ I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., liable to pay compensation as it could not establish violation of policy -conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation to the appellants/claimants for death of Samir Quareshi. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit; the Tribunal has erred in assessing the low income of the deceased; in selecting multiplier of 5 and in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs.85,000/-. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ I.C.I.C.I., Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., supported the award and submitted; in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased; applied multiplier of 5 and awarded' Rs.70,000/- as compensation towards loss of ^>\ '•^^'i,!f ,^ -2E? dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- on other heads and thus has awarded Rs.85,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants. 8. The accident had occurred in the year 2008. The deceased was aged about 23 years and could have easily earned at least Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum even by working as unskilled labour. Further, the average age of father and mother of deceased was 61 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the Tribunal also erred in selecting multiplier of 5 in place of 7, in view of dictum of Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein the Apex Court has prescribed the multiplier of 7 for the age group of between 61 to 65 years. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. After taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 50% of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the fact that claimants/appellants are parents of the deceased, the claimants' annual dependency would be Rs.18,000/- per annum. -By multiplying the claimants' annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- per annum byihe multiplier of 7, the amount of compensation towards^loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.1,26,000/-. The claimants/appellants are further entitled for Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.5000/- towards •^ loss of love and affection, therefore the claimants are entitled for total sum of Rs.1 ,36,000/- as compensation 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimants/appellants are awardecf a total sum of Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation in place of Rs.85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants are further entitled for interest @ 6% per annual from the date application till its actual payment on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.51,000/- The award is modified to the abbve extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 11. Respondent No.1/ I.C.I.C.I., Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 51,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the actual payment, before the concerned claims tribunal 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^'