"ws DiVISIQN BENCH HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV HQN'BLE SHRiSUNIL ^, C.J.. S1NHA. Misc. Appeal No. 434 of 2004 » 1 Bangali Bai,. Widow of Late Budhson, Aged about 38 years. 2 l^ramchand S/o Late Budhson, Aged abou{16years. 3 Premwati D/o Late Budhson, Aged abouf12 years Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minor through Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Bangali Bai. All R/o Villaae Arandwai P.S. Lohandiguda, Tahsi! Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (Non-AppSicanSs) P.R. Gawde, S/o Late Baidaram Gawde, Aged about 45 years, Village Assistant Rajoor Tahsil Jagdaipur, Dist: Bastar(C.G.) The National Insurance Company through Branch Office Jagdalpur. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appe!lants. Shri Alok Dewangan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.2. (22nd Ju!y, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by This Is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Jagdalpur (for short; 'the Tribunal') vide av^ard dated 08.09.2003, passed in Clalm Case No.491/2001 . 2) The appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Budhson claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.10.2001, when he was dashed by the offending vehicie Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G,-17/B/033, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Budhson who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment at Maharani Hospitai, Jagdaipur on 05-11-2001. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Budhson was aged about 38 years and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by selling Vegetables and from Agriculture. 3) The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle Motorcycle and its insurer contested the claim and denied their tiability to pay compensation to the ctaimants. The Insurer took the further plea ihat the motorcyclist was not holdlng a valid driving licence. 4) The claimants examined AW1 Bangali Bai and AW2 Mehtar Ram in support of their claim, whereas the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycle did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Budhson died on 05-11-2001 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.10.2001; the .y^f«& "• ^) accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the motorcycle by its owner/' driver; as the offending vehicle Motorcycle, on the date of the accident; was insured with the Nstionai Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month. By deducting 1/3r<i of Rs.1,200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clsimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per annum. Sy muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,34,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,47,400/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Budhson in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,47,400/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,200/- per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,47,4001- oniy. 8) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Nationa! insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite iiberal in awarding substantia! amount of Rs.1,47,400/- as compensatlon to the claimants though the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them in the claim petition. 9) Shri Aiok Dewangan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 also supported the award. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Budhson died on 05-11 -2001- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.10.2001: are based on the eyewitness account of AW2 Mehtar Ram and the evidence of AVV1 Bangali Bai, the widow of deceased Budhson. On a close scrutiny of their evidence, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon their evidence in recording the above finding. The liability of the insurer of the motorcycle is on ihe basis ofthe contents of the insurance Policy issued by the insurance Company. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11) True, the ctaimants pleaded that deceased Budhson, used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by selling Vegetables and from Agriculture but no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agriculturai land or he was running a vegetable shop. in this state of evidence, we do not flnd any fault In the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. ®) 12} Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) The Tribunal whi'e discarding the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Budhson sustained injuries and then succumbed to those injuries, took place in the year 2001 . If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the co-st of iving between the year 1994 and the year 2001, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taklng the income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15) By deducting usual 1/3rd of Rs.30,000,/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Budhson was shown to be 45 years of age sn the postmortem report though the claimants pleaded that he was 38 years of age, we are of the opinion that the multiolier of 12 would beaDDroDriate in the present case, in view of t t ~ - t the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825, wherein the multiplier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceased aged about 33 years. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 12; the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards Soss of consortium to ; the widow. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Budhson in the motor accident. 18) Learned counse! for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 19) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased iudhson lost his life took place in the year 2001; the claimants filed the claim petition in the year 2001; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003; the appellants/ claimants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2004; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in dssposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact ff& i %!*" that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07.600/- at Rs.12,400/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeilants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation; of Rs.1,47,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.12,400/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,600/-. 21) Respondent No.2 the National insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time Tor depositing the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs. 1,07,6007- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.12,400/- towards the quantified amount of •'nterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,600/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 22) No order as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinha sd/~ ll. Judge Chief Justice na ~'^i; Ii;lfm 1E m nimmi ~s yi \ v.