FM-^M^TTI ^V 6? E"ua: I 1 S -n t* t oii—*t*»i iiy RFhJfH Tfc anfisa=fe^'^8 E «S 5 i; UOKAlVI ; 3 s^ s as<" HON'B .^ •'i^s'Wa hfiilR^A^ ^i^lU.^ f| wat. rtUiviAH ainnM, »i!, Misc. No.800 of 2005 ^ F ST .f? ^ ?&. P "^•'^^- 4flViANTS neiiiliaii /d/o Komai . Sinah Sahu, ageo 34 years, Daneshwar S/o Lafe Koms! Singh, aged 14 years, h S/o Late Komal Singh, Si, No.2 and 3 minors, through the natural uuardian mother Premiata Sahu, Wd/o Koma! iingh Sahu, aged 34 years, All resident of VHiage Chhipii, Tahsii i/;;^^ r^^^—.^ni-,--."^^/-;^ /r^ /^ \ F\U^UU, Ui&t?i^/L L/USI Ut.an t^.^?.; ^"re' NON-APPUCANT ;i-SI 9 R^ss; il Q/n Qhrl -O/'U Oi u r'A Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari (C.G.) Ashok Kumar 3/o Vidhyasagar Agrawa!, through Ramcharan Agrawal, S/o Vidya Sagar, r/o industriai Ward, Dhamtari (C.G.) Ths5 Nfflw Inrils in^iir^nos J i'^ ^ ^~^ W js ^T^i'-fcn. ^ i^u^^ti ^4.^ i\T'lvf Company Limited, G.E. Djstrict Duro 'C.G.) Road. iviemorai »IViSSl;. s:"essnt : Smt indira Tripathi, counse! forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri NK Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shrl GVK Rao, counsel for respondent No.S/lnsurance C-ompany 7 .^«^.TitNilitt ^ ^•^-•u l^-tff7r-t-; »*• • ^^ILJ 2 WN»NWWNn» ^ f. '^Tr^ ^ js _ ^-_ t— ^~ft^\^ (13I" March, 2008) The foliowina order of the iu R'snfi irt was passea &y Sg ^e^. This >s ciaimants' appeal filed under Ssction 173 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Adciitional Motor Accident Claim Tribunai, Dhamtari (henceforth, "the Trlbunas") vsde award dated 25^ April, 2005 in claim r:?isis Nn 1 RQ?9nnA >urSS.''^l^,s- !i;<<u>. ?'i^/^'J'^.'t.sf'l.-";". 2) The c'aimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased - Koma! Singh c'aimed compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- bv fillna a daim petit'on under Ssction 166 of the Motor Vehicles A.ct, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for hjs death in the motor ac.cident on 13.01.2004 when hls vehicte was dashed by the offendina vehicte ~ truck bearina reaistration No.CG 05 ZC 0193 resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot. The claimants fLsrther pleaded that the deceased ~ t<toma! Singh used to eam Rs.4,000/- per month by working as manager in ^4aa Karma Rnf^5vl?pHS8 3) The owner, a'river and insurer of the offending vehicie - truck contestsd the claim and dented their llability to pay the compensation to the claimants. The owner and driver pteaded that the driver of the truck was not responsible for the accident and ths liabliity to pay compensation to the ciaimants, if any, wouid be of the Insurance Company, as the vehicle was insured on the clate of the accident. The insurer on the other hand pSeaded thaf the :A^-i^Bn.-h M.-AY^ ^ d^ I^A^; was being piied '" breach ofthe poiicy conditions anci the driver of the truckwas nof holciing a vaiid drivina 'icense. 4) The claimants examined AVW1 - Bhisham Kumar, AW/2 - Premlata & AW/3 - Namrnulsi, i-n support of their claim, •A'hereas the owner, driver and insurer of the truck did not examine any witness in rebuttai. 5) Th.e Tribunal on the evidence ied before it held that cieceased - Koma! Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.01.2004; the accident occurred due to ras'n and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie - truck; as the offending vehicie - truck was insured o" the of the accident with New India insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the ciaimants. 6) As the evldence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was found by the Tribunal unworthy of credsnce, the Tribuna! assessed the income of the deceased - Komal Singh at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notiona! income prsscribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Act. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.15,000/- tov,ards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual depsndency of Rs.10,000/- with t'ne muitiplier of 17, t'ne compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000'-. By awarding furthes' sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funera! expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of ^ Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased - Komai Sinflh in the motor accident on 13.01 .2004. 7) Smt Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the appeliants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptina the claimants' evidence about {he Income of the deceased and in assessing hls income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding IO'A' compensation of Rs.1 ,75,000/- only. 8) Shrl NK Agra'A'al, Senior Advocate for respono'ent No.3 New India Insurance Company on the other hand supported thi award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awsrding substantiai compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the cialmsnts. 9) As the respondents have not filed any appea! against the award, the findtngs recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Koma' Singh died on account ofthe injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 13.01.2004; ths accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle - truck; and ths insurer of the offending vehicle was liabie to pay the compensation to the claimants; have now attainsd finality. That apart, these findings are not under chalienge before us in this appea!. VVe, therefore, affirm the finalngs recorded by the Tribuns 'n that behalf. 10) Now ws shall examine as to v/hether the compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribuns.l is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present ;ase. ,^.^a!^SjL^t /< 11) ln a motor accident clalm case, what is important is that the compensation to be avvarded bythe Court / Tribunai should 'oe ju.st and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should nelther be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 12) The claimants pleaded that deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by working as man; Karma Bore Weils. AVV/3 - Nammulal in his evidence !ai y:na! ir in Ma< thi Tribunal that 3 sum of Rs.3,500/- was paid as salary to deceased - Koma! Singh. He further stated that in addltion to the above salary, aliowance of Rs.50/- psr day was being paid to him on the days of his field duty. As against thls evidence, AVW2 Premlata stated that her husband used to get sum of Rs.4,000/- as salarv ever/ month.. 13) In vlew or the above discreoant evidence about the income ofthe deceased, we do not find any fauit in the appros.ch of t'ne Tribunai in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 14) Nevertheiess, the income of.the deceased assessed by ths Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notion< income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act requires re-consideration as the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the accident in the present case wherein Komal Singh iost his Sife took piace in the year 2004. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of livina durina the oeriod i=i between 1994 to 2004 is taken into consideration, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2004. We; therefore, propose to re-compute fhe compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 15) By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personai expens.es of th.e deceased, claimants' dependsncy is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. 16) A.s the deceased was 35 years of age on the date of the accident, the approprlate multlplier in view pf the dictum or the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurancs rennrted in IIQQJ) 3 '-irfrSh^^ri ^'^fVD't ii s UfcE^^'^^^ S ^s" >38 would be 13. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multipiier of 13, t'ne compensation works out to Rs.3,12,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.10,000/- tovrards !oss of consortium to the v/idow; loss of estate; and funerat expenses, the c'aimants become entltled to recel'/e a total sum of Rs.3,22,000/- as compensation for the death of Komai Singh in ths motor accldent on 13.01 .2004, 1S) The clalmants are further entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum" on the enhanced amount of compensation or Rs.1,47,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition (13.02.2004) til! the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount ofcompensation. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! flled by the ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailov/ed in part. The compensation or Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.3,22,000/-. The ciaimants are awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- from the of filing of fhe claim pet'tion (13.02.2004) til! the date of actua! payment of the enhanced amount of compensatlon. 20) Respondent No.3 -' The New india insurance Company Lim'ted is granted thres months' time for depositing the enhanced amount of compensatlon with interest due thereon before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. -—_ Sd/- - Chief Justice SunU Kumar Sinha Judge