ummwagww IGH COURT OF CHHATTE$EARH Misc. Aggea! Nan 131 0f 2w? Smt. Philomina and others Vs. Shiw Kumar Sahu and ethers ORDER H Bi ASPUR For cansideration w Sdl- i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge t Sdl- Chief Jusu'ce g PGst for Order 10/G4i201 0 M i sw— Sunil Kumar Sinha l CG£AM: Han’ble Shri Raiaev Guptai SJ. & Hon’ble Shré $unii Kumar $inha, J. Hm'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEv GUPTA ) 6b [/"Y‘J‘L€i’ ‘ L /V/ HIGH CGURT QF CHHKFTE3GAEH= BELASPUR 66mm: Hon’bie shri Raieev GugitaJ C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunii Kumar Sinha, J. Misc. Aggeai No. 131 0f 2602 I APPELLANTS 1 Smt. Phiiomina Widow of Late Raffaii CLAIMANT$ Tiggai aged about 46 years. Kumari Suneeia D/o Late Raffai! Tigga, . aged about 21 years. Kumari Neeikusum D/o Late Raffai! Tigga, aged about 18 years. Kumari Jema D/o Late Raffail Tigga, aged about 15 years. 5. Ashok S/o Late Raffail Tigga, aged about 13 years. Appeilant No.4 to 5 are minor represented through their mother appetiant No.1. A11 belong to Uranw Caste Rio Vitlage Bhursa, Tah. Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Versus ‘RESPGNDENE 1. Shiw Kumar Sahu S/o Shiwpoojan Sahu, Abhisek Road wedge, Bhanpuri, Raipur (C.G.) ermanent Address is Abhie'ek Road wadge, Viiiage 8: Pf). Ghaghra, Distt. Gumla Jharkhand (STATE) 2. Branch Manager, National insurance Company Ltd. Patkot Road, Gumta, Jharkhand 635207. 3. Nagendra Singh Elo Vitay Singh, Rio Village Etta Chiltari, RQ. Etta, RSH. Bede, Distt. Ranchi (Jharkhand) M136. APPE&L UMBER 3ECTEGN 173 OF '{bEE M§ZFIT§R XIEHIQLE$ ACT amearanee: Mrs. Meena Shastri, Counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents 1 & 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.2. P 2 Misc. mineal No. 181 of 2652 0§§E§ (10,042019) Foltowing order 0f the Court was deiivered by Suni! Kumar Sinha, J. l1) The appeliants/claimants have filed thiS appeai far enhancement of compensation awarded in Ctaim Case Ne.‘i0.«’2OOG by the Member, Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Jashpumagar , District Jashpur (0.6.) vide award dated 19‘“ of October 2001. {2) The facts, briefly s‘tated, are as under: The appeiiants, unfortunate widow and chitdren of deceased Raffaii Tigga, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehiotes Act otaiming compensation of Re.6,92,500/- for his death in the motor accident on t6.03.2000, when the Bajaj two wheeler ltd-8Q bearing registration No.M.P.26' K.C./3862, on which the deceased wee travelling as a pitlion rider, was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No.id.P.-23—D.AJ278D on account of rash and negiigent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. The appellants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was earning Rs;1558/— per month by doing labour and agriculturai work and was also receiving Rs.SU/~ oer month as honorarium from Health Department. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver: and the driver, owner and insurer of the truck were iointiy and severaliy iiable to pay compensation. The Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.‘rBOO/— per month. After deducting Rs500l- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.‘itDO/— per month and Rs.t3,2DU/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 10 to the said annual dependency of Rs.13,2GD/— and the ! we 3 Misc. Appeal N0. “E81 o§ 26$? campansation was worked out to Rs‘1,32,QGO!-.By adding fudher sum of Rs.6000/— under other heads the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,38.0DQ/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiii its reatization. {3) Mrs. Meena Shastri, teamed counset appearing on behaif of the appellants raised only one point. She argued that a low muttiplier has been applied and a low compensation hae been awarded to the appeiiants. if») On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of reepondent No.2finsurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. id} We have heard learned counsei for the parties at iength and have aiso perused the records of the ciaim case. W_ (6) Admittedly. deceased Raffaii Tigga was aged about 5O years on the date of the accident and his widow - appeiiant No.1 was aged about 46 years. His daughter Suneeia was aged about 2t years and his other daughter Neeikusum was aged about 18 years. There was a minor daughter of the deceased namely Ku. Jema, who was aged about t5 years and there was a minor son nameiy Ashok. aged about t3 years. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case. the multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal does not appear to be proper. in our considered view, looking to the age ot' the deceased and the appeilants, the appropriate multiplier woutd have been 13. Therefore, we propose to recompute the compensation by appiying ‘ V multiplier of 13 in this matter. l Misgjigpeai No. 181 a? 2392 m By multiplying the annuai dependency 0f Rs.13,200/— with ihe muitipiier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.’1,7’1,600f—. By adding fun‘her sum of Rs.10,000I- under other permissible heads, the totai amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,81. ,600!—. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,38,000/—. By deducting this amount from Rs.1,81,600/—, the difference comes to Rs.43,60f3/-, which the appeiiants are entitied to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation ohaccouni of death of deceased —- Raffai! Tigga in the moior accident. (3) To avoid fudher oomplications and looking to the delay caused in dieposai of the Claim Petition as also the claimants’ appeal and that the lneurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem ft appropriate to quantify the interest! which we quantity as Rs.4400/— in this matten (9} Therefore, the appetiante are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4800G/— more (Rs.43,6a0f- as the enhanced amount of compeneation + Rs.4406/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which they shall receive from the insurance Company. {t0} The National insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.2 is granted 3 months time to deposit thisamount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. (tit The appeat is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). l ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I . Sdk Sdl- "\o ' Chief Justice i shyna