irr HGJICOURTOECHHATTISGARHAT^JLASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANTS CLAinflANTS RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal (C) No.1026 of 2008 1. Bharat Singh Tekam, S/o Pawan Singh, aged about 44 years. 2. Smt. Chaiti Bai, W/o Bharat Singh, aged about 40 years. 3. Sant Kumar, S/o Bharat Singh, aged about 24 years. 4. Ku. Tilkunwar, D/o Bharat Singh Tekam, aged about 22 years. All residents of Village Manikpur, P.S. Belgahna, Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Shahjahan Khan S/o Shafi Khan, aged about 25 years, resident of Baadyoga, P.S. Norwa, District Rohtas (Bihar) 2. Smt. Binu Nayar, W/o Dinesh Nayar, aged about 30 years, resident of near Pathak General Store, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (CG) 3. The Oriental Assurance Company Limited, Infront of Rajiv Plaza, New Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) ^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Ku. Meenu Banerjee, counsel forthe appellants/claimants. Mr. Bharat Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (07.12.2009) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.301/2007 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide award dated 30.01.2008. M.AfONo.l026of2008 2. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents, brother and sister of the deceased - Pawan Singh Tekam filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,46,0007- for his death in the motor accident which took place on 12.04.2007 when the deceased was dashed by offending truck bearing registration No.C.G.10- C-0746 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said truck. 3. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month as cleaner in the truck and he was also earning Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance. 4. The Tribunal, on its own assessment, held that the deceased was earning Rs.2500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 2/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 to the said dependency of Rs.10,000/- and the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.19,500/- under other heads, a total amount of Rs.1,69,500/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased Pawan Singh Tekam in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 7% per anhum from the date offiling of claim petition till its realisation. 5. Ku. Meenu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing bn behalf of the appellants, argues that the assessment of the income of the deceased was not proper. When the evidence in that behalf was not clinching, the Tribunal ought to have resorted to the notional income, which this Court has held as Rs.36,000/- per annum in many judgments, and the amount of compensation ought to have been worked out by the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Rajput and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. ^ i! t&-,.'" ":t., 1 L. 3 / '^^. t;^-^i '^^^^^- 3, M.AfONo.l026of2008 ^f'/ 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 8. Admittedly, the evidence led on behalf of the claimants regarding income of the deceased was not satisfactory. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the Tribunal ought to have resorted to the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule prepared under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The notionat income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the year 1994. Looking to the rise in prices of essential commodities and increase in cost of living from the year 1994 to the year 2007, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 could be held as Rs.36,000/-, as we have held in many cases. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the compensation by holding the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum. 9. Though the Supreme Court permitted in Donat Louis Machado and others v. L. Ravindra and others. (1998) 8 SCC 633 that in case of bachelor, the deduction of personal income may go up to 2/3rd but in the facts and circumstances of this case, where apart from the parents of the deceased, there are two other claimants, we deem it proper to deduct 50% on account of personal expenses of the deceased from his annual income, in view of the judgment rendered in Sved Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohammed Jameel and another. 2009 (2} SCC 225 in which the Apex Court has held in para 27 that there is no set formula which could be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this count. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of income of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one- half (50%) if he was a bachelor. K M.AfQNo.l026of2008 -A 10. By deducting 50% from Rs.36,000/-, the dependency works out to Rs.18,000/-. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 21 years and the claimants are parents, brother and sister. Therefore, we deem it proper to apply multiplier of 10 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Municioal Corooration of Greater Bombav -Vs- Laxman lyer & another. (2003) 8 SCC 731. By applying multiplier of 10 to Rs.18,000/- the amount of compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By adding Rs.15,000/- under other permissible heads, total amount of compensation works out to Rs.1,95,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,69,500/-. By deducting the aforesaid amount from Rs.1,95,000/-, the difference comes to Rs.25,500/-. The claimants are thus entitled to receive Rs.25,500/- as the enhanced amount of compensation on account of death of deceased - Pawan Singh Tekam in the motor accident. 11. The aforesaid amount of\Rs.25,500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the ds^te of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 12. The appeal filed by the dppellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. -— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge