Hm’i’ma smé Raieev Ga‘gtaa CAL gs §=i9m§£§ $i’afi Sgmi Kigmgur Sinigggi; ERA. No. 85$ a)? 2GQ5 Smt Malti Eai & Others t Vs. Rajaram & Others .NJDGMENT Far consideration J Sd/- 1 SUNIL KUMAR SIN'HA- Juge '9 0M*M Chief Jusmei “N Pest fer Judgment : /O3 /2011 w Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha A Judge HIGE-i CGURT QF CHHATT53GARH, 3ELA$PL§R $QRAM: W€3?‘t§"?£ E‘g $E‘Wt’! JKJ$HQE RAJEEV GUPTA d HéGH E©K£RT GF CHHATT§3GAREI B§LASPUR €§R%M: Animahfiagggg Q§g§mams MAT Ne. 355 9f 2mm Smt. Matti Bai, Wlo Lafe Shn’ Bhuwan Ram, aged about 29 years, Kumari Laxmi, D/o Late Shri Bhuwan Ram aged about 12 years, Parat, S/a. Late Shri Bhuwan Ram, aged abQut 9 years, Naval Kishore, SIG. Late Shri Bhuwan Ram, aged abau’i 7 yeai‘a, Appellan‘ia from 2 to 4 Through Appeliant No.1 Malti Bai. PokhanlaL S10. Pyari, Caste Haiba, aged about 54 years, Qesident 'of Vétlage Chamratoia, Thana— Mohaia, District Rajnaridgaom (oe) vefaua Rajaram, S/o Gauram, §3aste Mahar, R/o. Viiiage Ektakanhar, Thana— Mohla, Distt. Rajnandgaon (8.6.)— (Driver) Shrikumar, S/o Govind Prasad, Caete— Gond, aged about 32 years, Resident of Viiiage- Pandervani, Poet Keramatoia, Taheil- Mohata, District a, ‘Rajnandgaon (C‘G.)— (Owner) Branch Manager, United insurance Company ‘ Limited, Branch Office, Kamthi Line, Disttr Rajnandgaon (C.G,)- Unsurer) £>. Hon’bie $hri Raieev Gaga, CLJ, 8;; ttorfhte 3hri Sum Kumar $inha, J: 2 MA. No. 855 of 213(35 @mmaé tandm’ gagiim’a 1‘13 af Em Matar Vehicks Act) ii ramggEitgé: gm¢$§S § Shri Eaga'nt Dewangan, counse! for the appellants haw far resporwczehts l A n 8: 2. ‘Shri Dasar3%h Gupta, caunsel fer respondent No.3 JEDGMENT (05.a3.2$1 1) “Foiiawing judgment 0f the Court was deiivered by $uml Kumar $§nha. $. ii} The appenéntsiciaimants are seeking enhancement of campeneetion aWa‘raed in Claim Case No. 124/2004, by ihe First Addiiiaryai Meier Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnanolgaon vide award w. r‘lla'l'gd 1Q“ [VII-n1 ”(\f3R uu‘vu vv nnuy, Luyu. -a=s, I ii T‘ne appellanteiclalmants, unfortunate Widow, minor Cniidren and father 0t deceased Bhuwan Ram, filed a Claim petitian uis 166 at the Meter Vehicle Act, claiming eempeneation of Re. 9,74,000/n for his death in the motor aecident on 24.04.04, The appellants pleaded that the a‘eceaeed haci agricultural land and he had also a Bulluckcart, i-ie was earning §s i5Qf— per day. The accident occurred on amount of rash and negligent driving 0t the tractor by its driver when the deceased wee coming on the tractor The insurer pieaded that the Said tractor was insured tor agriculturai purpose. The Tribunai on a o‘iose scrutiny on the evidence i 51E £2 ee ne ’acte, briefly elated, are as under:— ear’ beiere it, held that the accident occurred on account of reeh ane‘ negiigent driving of the tractor and troily by its driver; tine deceased Wee traveling on the tractor ae a passenger; 3 MA. No. 355 Qf 20Q5 :frac‘zor was insured far agricuhura! purpose; therefore, the mauranca campahy was net 3iabie to pay the compensation. The Tribunal furthar heid that the aieceased was earning Rs SOI— per day; and Rs. 1500l— per mohth. By deducting V3” "ca :‘ardg pgrsenal expenses sf the deceaged, ‘the dependanoy {3f the appeEan‘tS wag worked out to Rs, 1.,QOGf— per month and Q3 ’i2,000}’- per annum. The decea$ed was aged abaut 32 years, The Tribunai appi§ed muitipligr 0f 12 ta the said annuai dependemy cf Rs, 12,000i- and ihe compensation was fvrcrkeci out i0 Rs. i,44,OGQI-A The Tribunai aiao awarded Rs 4,GOG/— under Other heads and the total amount Qt ccimpensatioh waa worked Gut to Ree 1,48,000/~, which the ”i‘iiibu‘nai awarded to the appeiients for the death of deceaeecic Bhuwen ih the motor accident The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 6% per ennum tram the date of tiling of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. The Tribunal directed that respondents ‘l & 2 (Driver & Owner) shall be jointly and eeverally lia‘ole to pay the compensation to the appellants. Aa» 3-2 Mt. Basant {jewangam learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appeilanteiclaimante, argued that the deceased wae aged about 32 years, therefore, the Ttibunal ought to have applied multiplier of x.... awarded under other permissible heads, which could have gone to Rs t’IQOOI- in this matter, which the Courts and Tribunals are normally awarded in suchi‘oases. 6. He also argued that a low amount of Re. 4,0001— hae been Qn the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Ciaims Tribunal. ,n Wt; MA. No. 855 of 2005 4:3, We have haard The ieamed caunse! for the pames at ieng‘th and have aisza peruged the records 0f the ciaim case. H-u xp) ‘ ,éc’imi‘r’cedly, the deceased was aged about 32 yearg on ‘the dafe? {3f ihe accident. The age of the deceased as 32 years is al$o meniicned iri his post mortem repori. it is on “ihis basis, the Tribunai hag meardecé the finding ihat the deceased was aged about 32 u . were am‘ has; applied the rmutipHer Q‘F 12. In $efia Verma {SMH & @fe. mifem gem? Ti’aaspm‘t Cemmiism 8: Aimihefi {2mm} e $€C 32;, i‘r’se multiplier’used for the age QVOUP’C": 32 years is 13' Therefere, we deem it appropriate t0 apply the multipfier of ’16 in this Law Sy appiying the mui’cipiie'r of 16 to the annuai dependency of Re 12,Q(3§i—, the compeneation works out to Rs. 1,92,000i—. The ’i'ribLgrzai has awarded Re, 4,0001- under other heads. Thie amount is aiso on the tower side. in the facts and circumstanoee of the case, we are 0t the View that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. “13006;“ under other permissible heads. We award Re. 15,000!~ under other permissible heads to the appeltants. By adding Re.t5,GQGf— in Re. 1.920001% the compensation works out to Re. .2,0?,060f-, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,48,000I—. By Beduoting Rs. t,48,00Q/— from Rs. 2,07,000I-, the difference comes to Rs. 5Q,OOO;’—. The appellants/claimants are thus entitled to receive a sum of Ks 5Q,OOQI— more as the enhanced amount of Compensation for the death of deceased— Bhuwan Ram in the motor cad nt The appenantslclgimants wouid be fur‘Her entitied to receive interest @ 6% per annum 0n the said enhanced amount of compenwtion fmm the date 0f fi§ing of the ciaim p‘ei'ition tin reahZai‘ian. I-m 1‘1) {he reSpcnndents 1 & 2 shall be jointiy and severally liable to l l p y the said amaunt of comppnsatlon to the appellants/claimants ($5) Whe appeal is allmwed to the extent indicated above. Q} There shall Pe no order as to coat. Sdl- Chief Justice; wwv‘V.‘ ,__l l !J,J Sdl- Judge Sun“ Kumar Sinh} ”"l