<^ <?.R ...f ^s^ mGHCQURTOFCHHATTiSGARH^^ DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRE SUNIL KUMAR S!NHA AND HON'BLE SHRj R.LJHANWAR.^J, APPELLANTS Clalmants Appjicants RESPONDENTS Misc. AppeaS No. 1377 of 2005 1. Ritu Yadav, W/o Late Kamai Yadav, aged 25 yrs. 2. Sadhu Ram S/o Sukial, aged 60 yrs., 3. Savitri Bai W/o Sadhu Ram, aged 50 yrs. All R/o Ward no.14, Civii Lines, Gariyaband, Tahsi! Gariyaband, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Kamata Nishad, S/o Ghashl Ram, aed ^. 23 yrs. R/o Viifage Tola, P.S: Gobara Nawapara, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Vehicie Driver. 2. Ramanand Kumbhkar, s/o Bisahat Kumbhkar, R//o Paragaon, Nayapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Vehicle Owner C.G. 04 ZB 3. Nationai Insurahce Co. Ltd. Through DMsionai Manager, Divisional Office, Raipur (C.G.) Insurer APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE M.V. ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Amiya Kant Tlwari, Advocate for the appettants. Mr. Anant Bajpai, Acivoeate for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 20.04.2011) ^ \ Per SunE! Kumar Slnha. J. The appeilants/daimants, unfortunate wldow and parents of the deceased Kamai Yadav, have filed this appea! for enhancement of ) compensation awarded in daim case No.7/2005 by the Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 30th August, 2005. M,A,NoJ377of2005 c '-)^ J cV-. 2. The appeiiants/daimants fiied a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act daiming compensation bf Rs.7,30,000/- for the death of deceased Kamal Yadav in the motor accident which took piace on 7.9.2004 when the motor cycie of the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicie Matador bearing registration No.C.G.04-ZB-2190 on account of rash and negiigent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. 3. The appeilants pteaded that the deceased was working as a Salesman in a hotel and he was earning Rs.3000/- per month. 4. Claim was opposed bythe respondents. The Tribunal, on dose scrutiny ofthe evidence led before it, heid that the accident occurred on account of rash and negtigent driving of the offending Matador by its driver and the Ensurance company was aiso liable to pay compensation to the appellants. The Tribunaf further held that thedeceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased.the dependency was worked out to Rs.12,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/-, compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,OQO/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.8,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was assessed to Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal thus awarded totai compensatjon of Rs.2',00,000/- to She appetiants/claimants for the death of Kamai Yadav in the motor accident on 7.9.2004. The Tribunal aiso awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petltion titi the date of actuai payment. 5. Mr. Amiya Kant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behaif ofthe •:^y" • _ • • - ., appellants argued that the income has not been properly assessed; the mu!tip!ier usedis not proper; the amounts awarded under other permissibie heads is very low; and a Jow cornpensation has been awarded to the appeiiants. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Anant Bajpai and Mr. Ra] Awasthi, iearned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents opposed these arguments and supported impugned award. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have aiso perused the records of the ciaim case. M.A.No. 1377 of2005 </v ^, ' ~v € •^ 8. True, that the appeilants/ciaimants pieaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/M per month by working as SaEesman in a hotei, but the evidence ied in that behaifwas not of clinching nature. The appeliants have not examined the employer of the deceased and the evidence of Ritu Yadav (A.W.1), widow of the deceased Kamai Yadav, is also vague. The Tribuna! on its own, looking to the nature of the work, heid that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per annum. The accident took place In the year 2004. Looking to the nature ofjob ofthe deceased, we dsem it appropriate to hold thatthe deceased was eaming Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation by holding the income of the deceased as Rs.24,000/- per annum. 9. By deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased from the income of Rs.24,000/-, the dependency works out to Rs.1B,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 25 - 30years. His wife was aged about 25 years and the parents were aged about 30 and 50 years, The Tribuna! appiied muitiplier of 16. We do not find anyfault in appiication of the multiplier of 16 in this matter. We also apply multlpiier of 16 to the annua! dependency of Rs.16,000/- and the compensation is worked out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- under other heads. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- under other permissible heads. By adding Rs.15,000/- to Rs.2,56,000/-, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.2,71,00p/-. The Tribuna! has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. By deducting Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.2,71,000/-, the balance comes to Rs.71,000/-. The appellants/claimants are thus entitied to receive a further sum of Rs.71,6@6/- as the enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased Kamai Yadav in the motor accident on 7.9.2004. 10. To avoid further complicationsand iooking to the delay caused in disposai of the Claim Petition as also the ciaimants' appeai and that the Jnsurance Company alone cannot be biamed for such delay, we deem It appropriate to quantily the interest, whichwe quantify as Rs.7,000/- In this matter. 11. !n the present facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the entire amount of enhanced compensation, Rs.78,000/- (Rs.71,000/- as the enhancedamount of compensation and Rs.7,000/- as the amount of M.A.No. 1377 of2005 '^ \- ^' .•? quantified interest onthe enhanced amount) wili be received by the widow ofthe deceased nameiy Ritu Yadav (appellant No.1 herein). 12. The National insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time to deposit the afpresaid amount of Rs.78,000/- with the conceming CIaimsTribunal. 13. The appeal is allowed to the esdent indicated abovs. There shaii be nfi.oi^ders as to cost(s), Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- "•l-^ar 3udQe \< <' ^^'<^