y: ni ^u^l ICI -W B ^^B&! •%r?.r^ffa<] Claimants 1 Smt. Jamuna Bal widow of Late Shri Khemchsnd Sahu, aged about 23 years; 2 Ku, Chhava d/o. Late Shri Khemchand Sahu, aged about 5 years; 3 Roshan Kumar son of iate Shrl |.<hpmr:h?tnrl P.^hu snEi^d shniEf 01 vp-^r?^' JE E t^-t ti"ii £^~4 ^—^C^lI^^ C^^V./^ D.k^^/^tL ^*/ i y^rCtfSt i«?^ 4 Sawantram son of Shri Jethuram Sahu, aaed about 55 vears: 5. Smt. Bhanbai wife of Shri Sawantram, sgsd sbout 5Q ysars^ The appellants No. 2 and 3 are minor; through their naturai guardian mother Smt. Jamunabai widov/ of Late Shrl Khemchand Al! residents of village Kokdi, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG), presently residlng at Piproud, Tahsii Abhanpur, Distrid Raipur (CG) 3-^SSS STL. 1 Pappu Robinson son of Shri Realsenson, aged about 35 years, resident of Tliaknagar, Hirri Mines, Hlaspyr, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). • 2. Vajeer iVIohamrnad son of Shekhchand, aged about 60 years, resident of Jarbabhata Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Dhamtari (CG). ^s:sa%>. y^ ~% flisceEianeous Api3eal under Sectlon 173 of Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, and Shri Aditya Kumar, counsel forthe . appeliants. Shri Shaiiendra ShariTia, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri AK Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. i'09" ^Vw "he follov/ina order of the Court was oassed bv ta. CJ. T'nis is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation av/arded bv the Additiona! Motor Accident CIaims Triribunal, Dhamtari, district Ralpur (for short 'the Tribunar) vjde award dated 28.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.576/2004. 2) As against tne compensation of Rs.12,50,000/-, claimed by the appeliants/claimants, unfortunate widow, mlnor children and parents of deceased Khemchand Sahu by fiting a ciaim petltion under Section 156 of the Motor v'ehicies Act, for his death in the mniTir ??r':r:lf^^lrti' r'in HQ HR /^HOiii th?5 TE'lh[!H?il ?lw?5rdpd ?:s fnf?5! ^I.EFT. of i [ EULLfi CTtufi^'iU^i iL Ui E U-^?. l~?<^. ^.U'»/"?. s.it'S i lit^t^SiCtE CiV'ifCli'U ^f\Jt d t.^/l&i t3^ii t E l-*i s?<s Q r^n nn'!*w- •sct f-trin^?^ss!^s^^aA)r;ir'i T-") ^"'i^a ^lsirrt'ar'f^ sl^ri^' ti.fi^h'i?"!td?'ss< °-^LS.^..;UUjUUU/" ffiO i^Ui s i^e;i iOQli'^i i ^,J Lii^ t^iCiii i iCti ii.S .i3ii—'fi^ Vyiis i •-ii'il^! C:' @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition til the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it hela' that deceased Khemchand Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.08.2004; the accldent occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offendinQ vehide Truck bearina registration No.C.G.04- ^" ZC,/7001; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of th( accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the po!lcy conditions, the insurance Company was !iab!e to pay the compensation to the ciaimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribuna! have nc.w attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunai • assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed In the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. By dea'ucting 1/3r° of Rs.15,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/'- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multipHer of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding furthp>r RiJtTi nf R% 90 QOO/- ijndsr ot'h^r h^sds ths Trlhunsi i ^uS'i ^3 J^/i ^^t i^ ^N/ ! 3 \^< ^\^ ^ \</t»./^^/" ^^a^i^i ^nf^lt^S SI^^^d^Sj ^EIW !i3^^iEa^i awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000,'- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Khemchand Sahu in the motor accident ,The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actuai payment. .. ' 6) Shrl P.P. Sahu, learned counselfor the appellants submittec that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessin.g his income at 4 Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only. 7) Shri A.K. Athaiey, learned counsei for respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3) Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Vajeer Mohammed, the owner of the offending vehicle Truck, also supported the award. in a mo accident ciaim case what is important is that the to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be compensation in the facts and circumstances cf the case. it should nelther be a meager amount of compensation, nor 10) NO'A', Vi'e shai! examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensaijon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, ths claimants pleaded that deceased Khemchand Sahu used to ea.rn Rs.150/- per day' as. Carpenter, no cogent and ciinching evidence was led in that 'behalf before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was not working as Carpenter in the District Headquarters. In this state.of eVidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. s: 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Khemchand Sahu was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as unskiiied iabour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking ihe income of t'ne deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3ro of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, t'ne claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, their children and parents we are of the opinion that muitiplier of 16 wouid be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.16,000/- w'rth the muitipiier of 16, the compensation v,'orks out to Rs.2,56,000/-. By addlng a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,76,000,/- as compensatioh for the' death of deceased Khemchand Sahu in the motor accident. 17) Learned counsei for the parties submitfed that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between Vhe parties before the Tribuna! about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantiried in this appeal itself. 18) Considering ali the relevant aspects of the matter, includins the delay in dlsposal of the ciaim petition and t'ne present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company aione is not to be biamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhancsd amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/- Rs.8,000/-. 19} For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appellants/' clalmants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awsrded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,76,000/'- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/-. 20) Respondsnt No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.76,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/'- towards quantified amount of interest on fhe enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/-) befors the concerning Claims Tribunai.' 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice SA'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Dadma