HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISEON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 804 of 2002 1 Jagesar, S/o Late Kanhaiya Sahu, 60 yrs 2 Raj Bati, w/o Jagesar Sahu, 50 years Both R/o Vi" & Post Kandel The & Distt Dhamtari (CG) Appellants C’ aimants Versus Respondents 1 Sandeep Chandrakar, S/o Bhushan!al, Non-applicants 28 years, Sai Construction Kurud, Distt i Dhamtari (CG) 2 Dharam Chand Jain, S/o Not Known, R/o Rani Tarai, The Patan, Distt Durg (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office— Behind Amar Talkies Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (CG) I rsc, Appeal uner Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Eiesent: Shri Prafcn Bharat and Shri Santosh BhQrat, cclins'el for the appellants. None for respondent No.1. Shri SP Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. i l I i t t t t t ORDER (1615 April, 2010 t ; The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. t y This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims d ) ripunal, Dhamtari (for short, ‘the Tribunal”) vide award dated 033092002 passed in claim case No.303/2002. 2) As against the compensation 0f Rs.12,50,000/— claimed by the‘ appeila’nts/ claimants, unfmtunate parents of deceased l Teijram by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vel’hicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.04.1999, the :l‘ribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.94,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of tiling of l . the claim petition‘till the date of actual payment 3)l The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants‘ son Tejram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25’1041999; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing re‘gistration No.MPT-9055; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance 1 i l Co$mpany Limited, the insurance company was liable to pay l compensation to the claimants. l 4i As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the aWard, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal now, have attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,300/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.600/- per month toyvards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.700/- per month and Rs.8,400!- per annum. gy multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.84,000i— T with the multipHer of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.84,000/-.‘ By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/— under other :heads, the Tribunél awarded a total sum of Rs.94,000/— as icompensation to the claimants for the death of their son Tejram in ithe motor aooident.’ The Tribunal further directed payment of tinterest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/— @£.5% per annum‘ from the date of tiling of the claim petition till " the date of actual payment. ‘6) ‘ Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,300/- per month ‘ only; in selecting lower multiplier of 10; and in‘ awarding iow ‘ compensation of Rs.94,000/— only. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that, the compensation of Rs.94,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is ]ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Dharam Chan Jain, owner of the offending vehicle also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Tejram used to earn Rs.5,000/— per month by working as Press Correspondent of Newspaper ‘Prakhar Samachar’, neither the proprietor of the said Newspaper nor any other employee was examined before the i i [.vV‘q ‘. @ Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/— per month. In this state of evidence, the Tribune! was ieft with no other option, but to assess the income of the i d‘eceased on its own estimate. 1T0) On due consideration of the submissions of learned dounsei for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the TribunaL 11) Claimant No.1 Jagesar, father of deceased Tejram was aged about 60:65 years on the date of the accident whereas mother of the deceased, claimant No.2 Raj Bati was aged about 50 years. Deceased Tejram was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident. The unfortunate accident wherein deceased Tejram lost his life took place in the year 1999. i2) The compensation of Rs.94,000f- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad l eatures of the case, we are of the opinion, is somewhat on the l i lpwer side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. l 1’3) ln our considered opinion, further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.94,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further amount of Rs.11,000/— inclusive of interest component on the enhanced ,W Sd/- Kuma" Smha amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rst94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. j15) Respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1 1 ,OOOI- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. ' i I Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE / ‘a Sun“ Judge