C^ff-^-SO^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiyiSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Miscellaneous Appeal (0 No.1041 of 2008 Appellants 11111 Respondents 1 Smt Koushliya Bai Yadav, W/o Late Mehattar Yadav, aged about 30 years 2 Deo Charan Yadav, S/o Late Mehattar Yadav, aged about 3 years 3 Bamleshawari, D/o Late Mehattar Yadav, aged about 6 months Through both minor legal representative of mother KoushJiya Bai Yadav, appellant No.1. 4 Smt Parvati Yadav, W/o Late Firtu Yadav, Aged about 60 years All of resident are village Teka, Post Pithora, Tahsil & District Mahasamund VERSUS 1 Balkar Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh aged about 48 years, R/o Boparam Golden Carrier, Near Kaka Dhabha, Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Driver of Trailor bearing registration No.HR 38 G.6034 2 Sarabjit Singh Dhillan, S/o Garnup Singh Dhilian, R/o Boparam Golden Carrier, Near Kaka Dhabha, Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Owner of Traitor bearing registration No.HR 38 G.6034 . 3 The National tnsurance Company through : Madina Building Raipur (CG) ^ Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehicIeAct Present : Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsel for the appeltants. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20th June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.01.2008, passedin Claim Case No.78/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.20,20,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Mehattar Yadav, by filing a claim petitionunder Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Mehattar Yadav died on account ofthe injuriessustained by him in the motor accidenton 28.06.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver of ^ -^j f^" the offending vehicle truck-trailor bearing registration No.HR-38 G/6034; as the above offending vehicle truck-trailor on the date of theaccident, was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited,and the Insurance Company could not estabilsh any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai 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.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mehattar Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the lower muitiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- only. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the jnsurer of the offending vehicle truck-trailor on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) On due consideration of the entire evidence led before the Tribunal about the incomeof the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. 9) Similariy, the claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expense. 10) Nevertheless, the multEplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Mehattar Yadav was aged about 35 years on the date ofthe accident and his widow Smt Koushliya Bai was shown to be 30 years of age in the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corppration and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group betweeji 31-35 years. 1'1!- o^ iC 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive atotal sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation forthe death ofdeceased Mehattar Yadav in the motor accident. 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled toreceive intereston the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appea! itseif. 14) Considering all the relevant aspects ofthe 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 amountof interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- at Rs.13,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by theappellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000/-on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 16) Respondent No.Sthe National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of ^T Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.1,07,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge idma '^