';!!.. i3>.\»^ "^^ HON'BLE SHRi L.C. BHADOO, J, Misc. Appeal No. 364 of Appellants la!»iit!ig'B! 3. 5. Lakhani Bai, widow of Shri Sukhdev Nishad, aged about 32 years. Ku. Puneshwari, D/o Shri Sukhdev Nishad, aged about 17 years. Shiv Kumar, S/o Shri Sukhdev Nishad, aged about 15 years. Shiv Charan, S/o Shri Sukhdev Nishad, aged about 12 years. Smt. Birajo Bai, W/o Shri Phoo! Chand Nishad, aged about 62 Phool Chand Nishad, S/o Rajaram Nishad, aged about 70 years. (Appellants No.2 to 4 through iegal guardian mother appeilant No.1). Al! R/o viliage Jogidih, Tahsi! & District Dhamtari (CG). RESPONDENTS: 1 Gajanand Mandavi, S/o Kapi Mandavi, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Bagodar, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (CG). (Owner of tractor bearing No.MP-62- 2697) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Urban Branch No.2, Fvladina Buiidina, Jail Road, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (CG). a J ^^^^"•i^ ^ ^/./ -^s.y Mjsc. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988 Present : Shri R.S. Pat^l, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No. Shri Ali Asaar, counsel for respondent No.2. .|]B!iMi! (14th February, 2008) 'he following order pf the Court was passed by i,c.. This is claimants' appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth "the Act") for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Additional Motor AccideRts Claims Tribuna!, Dhamtari (henceforth "the Tribunat") vlde award dated 31- 1-2003 passed in claim case No.527/2002. 2) The claimants, unfortunate widow, children and parents of the deceased Sukhdev Nishad, claimed compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- by filing a claim petitlon under Section 166 of the Act for his death in the motor accident on 28-5-2002 when the tractor bearing registration No.MP-62-2697 in which he was travelling met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor resulting in his death. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased Sukhdev Nishad used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as fistTerman. 3) The owner-cum-driver and the Insurer of the tractor contested the claim and denied their liabllity to pay compensatlon to the claimants. The owner-cum-driver pleaded that deceased pz; ^Biinaeij! himself was responsible for the accident whereas the insurer of the tractor pieaded that the driver was not holding a valid driving license and the tractor was being piied in breach of the policy conditions. 4) The claimants examined AW-1 Lakhni Bai, AW-2 Bahoran Das & AW-3 Devla! Nishad in support of their ctaim whereas owner-cum-driver & insurer of the tractor did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by t the parties held that deceased Sukhdev Nishad died on account of the injuries sustainsd by him in the motor accldent on 28-5-2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the tractor and as the tractor on the date of accident was insured with United india Insurance Company Llmited, the" Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5) As the evidence about the income of the deceased was not found reliable, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.2,080/- per month on its own estlmate. By deducting a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,'580/- per month and Rs.18,960/- per annum. By multlplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,960/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,89,600/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs.10,000./- under other permissible heads the Tribuna! awarded a tota! sum of Rs.1,99;600/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhdev.Nishad in the motor accident. The '"^ ^:xy li!|i ilB"liiii>:!|ij Tribuna! further awarded interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,99,600/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri R.S. Patel, 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.2,080/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,99,600/-oniy. 8) Shri Ali Asgar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,99,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts of ihe present case as the claimants couid not establish the income of the deceased as was pleaded by them. 9) Shri Sunil Sahu, teamed counsel for the owner-cum- driver ofthe tractor also supported the award. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunat that deceased Sukhdev Nishad died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28-5-2002; the accldent occurred due to rash ar^d negligent driving of the driver of the'tractor; and the insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants are based on the evidence of AW-1 Lakhani Bai, AW-2 Bahoran Das & AW-3 De'/lal Nishad. 11) On a close scrutiny of the evidence of above named witnesses, we are satisfied that the Tribuna! has rightly relied upon "'<?>..'-^. ':^ ?l. """'I S ^ the evidence of these witnesses in recording the above findlngs. We, therefore, sffirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 12) The claimants in their claim petition had pleaded that deceased Sukhdev Nishad used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as fisherman. The evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased bv the Tribunal at Rs.2,080/- per month. The Tribunai had been quite liberai in deducting oniy a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards the personai expenses of the deceased and in assessing the dependency of the claimants at Rs.1,580/- per month and Rs.18,960/- per annum. 13) The multlplier of 10 selected by the Tribuna! is certainly on the lower side. Considering that deceased Sukhdev Nishad was aged about 35 years on the date of accicient and his widow Lakhani Bai was shown 32 years of the age in the claim petition, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) By multlplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,960/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,46,480/-. By adding the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the othe^permissible heads, the claimants become entitled to receive tota! sum of Rs.2,56,480/-. The claimants are further entitied to get interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. 6 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Act for enhancement of compensation awarded -by the Tribunal is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.] ,99,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,56,480/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Slx Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty). The enhanced amount of compensation sha'l carry interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 16) Respondent No.2/United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositina the enhanced amount of compensation and the interest due thereon before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. ^-^—--^^—-^- 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- L.C- Bhndoo Judge sadma l"|i -,'r