HIG'H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. CORAM'. Misc. Appeal No. 368 of 2004 t » Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : .Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior counsel with Smt; Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri A.K. Prasad, counseifor the appellant. None for respondent No.3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4. Appellant Radheshyam Slngh, S/o Late Claimant Ramsundar Singh, aged about 52 years, Occupation — Service, .r/o SECL Colony, Baikunthpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koria CG 2' VERSUS g Respondents 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Non—applicants Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Distt. w Bilaspur, through Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area, SECL ; g Baikunthpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, A w Distt KoLia CG Depot Manager, Regional Stores, Churcha Colliery, Baikunthpur area, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Distt Koria CG 3. Ramkripal, s/o Anandram, aged about 45 years, Occupation Driver, r/o Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Distt Koria, CG 4. Branch Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Branch Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, CG ORDER (zo‘h June, 201 1) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’_ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, district Korea (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 24.12.2003, passed in Claim Case No.21/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.32,65,970/— claimed by appellant] claimant Radheshyam Singh, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.08.2000 and for the ’ death‘of his wife Smt. Sita Singh on account of the injuries sustained by her in the same accident, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,44,400/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Radheshyam Singh sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 13.08.2000; the claimant’s wife Smt. Sita Singh also died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the same motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 27D/2523; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the United India um. Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunai considering that most of the medicai expenses incurred by ciaimant Radheshyam Singh were reimbursed by his empioyer South Eastern Coalfields Limited and no bills and vouchers were produced by the claimant about the other ancillary expenses, awarded Rs.1,92,000/- towards disability found to have been suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 6) So far as the claimant’s claim relating to the death of his wife Smt. Sita Singh was concerned, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.350/— per month and Rs.4,200/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.4,200/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,400/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/— towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.52,400/— as compensation to claimant Radheshyam Singh for the death of his wife Smt. Sita Singh in the motor accident. 7) The Tribunal further directed payment of interest’on the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,44,400/— (Rs.1,92,000/— + p Rs.52,400/—) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the fact that the disability of claimant Radheshyam Singh certified by the medical board vide disability certificate Ex.P/7 was of temporary nature, fairly and frankly conceded that no case for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries of claimant Radheshyam Singh is made out. 9) Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the compensation of Rs.52,400/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of claimant’s wife Smt. Sita Singh is too low and deserves to be enhanced. 10) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the United lndia Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, contended that as deceased Smt. Sita Singh was not having any independent income of her own, the compensation of Rs.52,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for‘respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 12) Though Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel fortthe appellant did not challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by claimant Radheshyam Singh, \ v we have examined the entire material available in the record in regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. On due consideration of the entire material and the fact that the disability suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident was of temporary nature only, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the z compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) So far as the compensation of Rs.52,400/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of appellant’s wife Smt._’ Sita Singh is concerned, the same certainly is on the lower side and deserves to. be enhanced suitably. 14) The claimant’s wife Smt. Sita Singh was aged about 45 years on‘the date of the accident. Though the claimant pleaded that she used to earn Rs.66,000/— per annum by stitching clothes, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the’above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.66,000l- per annum. 15) Nevertheless, deceased Smt. Sita Singh being aged about 45 years could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by Working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation'taking the in’c'fbme of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 16) As there is only one claimant in the case i.e,, husband of deceased Smt. Sita Singh, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. We, @ therefore, assess the claimant’s dependency at Rs.12,000/— per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 17) As the sole claimant in the case i.e. Radheshyam Singh is shown to be 52 years of age, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 11 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51-55 years. 18) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,32,000/—. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,47,000/— as compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Sita Singh in the motor accident. 19) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensationruthe amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. a 20) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal t /, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,600/— at Rs. 1 0,400/-. 21) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. While maintaining the amount of compensation of Rs.1,92,000/— awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by appellant/ claimant Radheshyam Singh, the compensation of Rs.52,400/— awarded by the Tribunal for the death of appellant’s wife Smt. Sita Singh is enhanced to Rs.1 ,47,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,400/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,600/—. 22) Respondent No.4 the United lndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/— (Rs.94,600/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,400/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,600/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 23) No order as to costs. ‘ Sd/- N.K.AGARWAL f, Sd/- t g r, I (I t Judge “ Chief Justice , l