M^- '^ HiGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIWSIONBENGH CORAM: HON9BLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA,J.& HON'BLESHRJR.L.JHANWAR,J. MISG. ADpeal N6. 745 of 2004 'M A.Dp^iJants Cjajmants :^i N ^ ResDondents (Non-appycants) Smt. Kewra Bai widow of late Sbyam Lal Nlshad, aged about 45 years, oceupation— House wife. 2 3 Santoshi D/o Shyam agedaboutlSyears, Lal Nishad, Ramesh Nlshad, s/o iate shyam Lal Njshad, aged about 16 years, ^m^. iy»^ 4 Kumari Rameshwari d/6 iate Shyam Lai Nishad, aged about 13 years, 5 Mykesh S/o late Sliyam Lal Nishad aged about 7 yeare, applicant No. 3 .to 5 representecj hiereby legal guardian through itnother applicant "-..No.I.1,.1 .••'.1 •' ,-..j ; .','',1'/::';'. •. \ Ail resjdent of village FundhaF near Police Station Tahsil & Distt. Raipur C.G. ':.'. • 1 ^ : ''.• VERSUS " 1 Jyoti.Prakash Mahanto S/o Bhuwari Mohan Mahanto occupation Truck Driver & Truck Owner, R/o Transport KargoAgency, Bhanpuri, Raipur. 2 The New India |nsurance Company Limited, Diyisionai Manager, Divisional Qffice Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G; MisGelIaneousApDeatu/S^73oftheIVIotorVehicleAGt,188§ 'i^. Present: Shri A.L. Singraui, Advocate for the appeHants. '•\ ^' -<, Shri H.P. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2/ InsuranceCompany. ORDER §th (4tnDecember,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunll Kumar Sinha, J. The appellants/' ciaimants have filed this appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded in C!aim Case No.24/2003, by the Sixth Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.03.20Q4. 2) The appellants/ claimants, unfortunate.widow and minor children of deceased Shyam Lal filed a claim petitiori under Section 166oftheIV{otoFVehiclesAct, claiming cQmpensation of Rs.26^0,000/-, for his death in the motor accident, which took piace on 22.12.2002 when the Heropuch Moped; which the deceased was driying; was dashed by fhe offending vehicie Tryck bearing registration No.O.R.-09/B-3844 from the backside, on account Gf ras&^nd negligent driving of the said Tryck by jts driver. 3) The appellants/ claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a Contractor and he was aiso earning some amount from the agricultura! operations. The appeliants examinedSmt.Kewra Bai (AW-1) and Rakesh Kumar Nirmaikar (AW-2) in support of their ciaim petitlon, t ^l ^i whereas the respondents did not examine any witnesses in rebuttal. 4) Since the evidence led by the appeilants/ ciaimants to prove the income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, thereforetheTribunaldidnotreiyontheirevidenceforassessing the income of the deGeased and resorted to the provisions of f : '.^!-.' ;.-1-';..11,^.'.1..11.-:./ •. .:, ..•:" ..: 1 •:-••:••...•.•'".. ',' Section 163-A of the IVIotor Vehicles Aet and held the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionaj Jncome. By deducting 1/3rd towards the perspnal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellante/ claimantswasjworked qutto Rs.10,000/-perannum. Byappiying the muitipijer of 8 to the annyai dependency^of Rs.10,000/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-; by awarding a furthersumoftRs.13,000/-underotherheads,thefinalamountof compensationwasw6rkedouttoRs.93,000/-.iTheTribunal,thus awarded, a total sum of Rs.93,000/- as cQmpensation to the appeilants for the death of deceased Shyam Lai. In the motor accident on 22-12-2002. The Tribunal aiso awarded interest @6% per annum ffom the date of filing of tfte clalm petition tiil realization. 5) Shri A.L. Singraul, ieamed counsei appearing on behalf of the appeiiants, argued that the income of the deceased was not properiy assessed by the Tribunai. He submitted that in many Gases,thisCourthasheldthat:thenotjonalincomepfRs.15,000/- per annum prescribed in the year 1994 v^ouid be taken at -7~~ icv ^ ^:. -Nv Rs.30,000/- per annum on account of rise of prices in the essential commodities, costoflJvtng,therefore,theTribunalought to have held that the deceased was earning Rs.3Q,000/- per annum and the compensation would have been worked out on such income ofthe deceased. 6) On the other hand, Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behaif of respondent No.2/ Insurance Company ~ opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the ClaimsTribunai. 7) We have heard iearned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the records ofthe claim case. 8) Though the appeliants/ ciaimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- by working as a Contractor and he was also earning sQmeamount by doingiagricujtural work, but no documents were produced by the appellants to prove that the deceasedi in fact, was working as a Contractor or even the deceased was having some agricultural tand. In this state of affairs, the Tribunai has rightiy disbelleved the evidence of the wife of the deceased Tegarding the Income of the deceased and has rightly resorted to the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act for determining the jncome of the deceased on the basis ofthe notionai income. The notionai Income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicies Act in the year 1994. The accident, in the present case, took piace in the month of / n:::r: A. -^' December, 2002. Gonsjdering the rise of prices in the essential commodities and cost of living in betweentheyear 1994 to 2002, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 should have been taken as Rs.30,000/- jn the year 2002, which we have taken in many identical cases. Therefore, we propose to recompute the compensation on the basis of incoffle of the deGeasedas Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9) By deducting 1/3rd of, Rs.30,000/- towards the persona! expenses qf the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs.20,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 55 years and his widow was shown to be aged about 45 years and there weretwodaughtersagedabout18yearsand13yearsandthere were two sons of 16 years and 7 years; The Tribunal has applied myltiplier of8i Lookjng to the entirefacts and circymstances of the case, we are of the-ppinion, that the muitiplier 6f 8 appiied by the Tribunal vvas the proper multipljer in this matter, By applying multipiier of 8 to the annual d.ependency of Rs.20,000/-, the compensationl works out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs^5,OW- under other permissible heacls, the totai amount comes to Rs.1,75,000/-. The Tnbunal has already awarded Rs.93,000/-. By deducting Rs.93,000/- from Rs.1,75,000/- the difference comes to Rs.82,000/-. The appellants/ claimants are, thus. entitled to receive a. sum of Rs.82,000/- more as the enhanced amount of compensation for 6 4l,. ^ -^ the death of deceased Shyam La! in the motor accident on 22.12.2002. 10) To avojd further compiications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petit'ion as also the appeliants' appeal and that the Insurance Company alonecannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quaritify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.8,000/- in this matter. 11) Therefore, the appefiants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.90,000/- more (Rs.82,000/- as the enhanced amount of compensationandRs;8,000/-astheamountofquantifiedinterest on the enhanced amount) which the appellants shat! receive from the New 1ndia Insurance Company. 12) The New India Insurance Company Limited/ Fespondent No.2 is granted 3 months'time to depositthisiamquntbeforethe concerned ClaimsTribtKial. 13) The appeal is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. There shail be no orders as to the cost(s). Sd/- < Sunil KumarSlnha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge nimmi -^J