HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE sUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR MA. NO.294I2005 Hira La! S/o Gadaram, Caste , Binjhwar, aged about 44 years, Resident of Village Checharapali, Police Station Kashkol, District Raipur (C.G.) APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Manohar @ MunnaBariha, S/o Tularam, Resident of Viliage -— Checharapaii, Police Station Kashkol, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Punit Ram Nayak, Slo Anand Singh Nayak, aged about 50 yearsix Resident of Village Checharapali, Police Station Kaehkol, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Orientai Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (13.01.2011) i The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha J.,, ‘ \ 2 M.A. No.294l2005 \J The appellantlclaimant ’has flied this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.30/2004 by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) vide award dated 16‘“ of December 2004. The appellant/claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased- Prem Bai, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- for her death in the motor accident on 03.01.2004. The appellant pleaded that the deceased was aged about wyears and was earning Rs.100/- per day by selling vegetables. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-Jeep by its driver and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of policy conditions, therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny x0; the evidence led before it, held that the appellant could not establish that the deceased was earning Rs.100/— per day. The Tribunal on its own estimate, held that the deceased was eaming Rs.600i- per month. By deducting 1/3“ towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.400l- per month and Rs.4800l- per annum. By applying multiplier of 12 to the said annual dependency of Rs.4800/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.57,600/—. By adding further sum of Rs.2000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased, the ‘ Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.59,600/- as compensation to the appellant for the death of the deceased in the motor accident on 03.01 .2004. Th‘e Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till t Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the / Tribunal has not assessed proper income of the deceased, realization. ‘ \ , x 3 MA. No.294l2005 V therefore, a very low amount of compensation has been awarded to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the lnsurance Company opposes these arguments and supports the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claim Case. True, that the appellant pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.100l- per day by selling vegetables, but the evidence led on that behalf was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal, therefore, on its own estimate recorded the finding that the deceased must be earning Rs.600l~ per month by selling vegetables. We do find any basis for determining such income of the deceased by the Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the above finding of the Tribunal. The deceasedwas aged about 4O years. We are of the view that she could have easily earned Rs.75-80I- per day by working as labour in the year 2004. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to hold tlte income of the deceased as Rs.2000!- per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. We, therefore, propose to re—compute the compensation by holding the income as Rs.24,000/— per annum. According to the claim petition, there were only two members in the family of the deceased. Therefore, we deduct 50% from the above income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and the dependency comes to Rs.1 2,000I-. Looking to the age of the appellant as also the deceased and further that the appellant must have his own income also, we deem it appropriate'to, apply multiplier of 1O in this matter. By applying multiplier of 10 to the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/—. By adding a further sum of Rs.10,000l- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.1 ,30,000l-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.59,6OOI-. ‘N, 4 NLA. No.294l2005 By deducting Rs.59,600!- from Rs.1,30,000l.-, the difference comes to Rs.70,400/-, which the appeilant is entitled to receive as enhanced amount of compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor accident on 03.01 .2004. To avoid further complications and looking’to the delay caused in disposal of the claim petition as also the claimant’s appeal and that the lnsurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriateto quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.6600/— in this matter. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.77,000/— (Rs.70,400l— as V the enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6600/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which he shall receive from the lnsurance Company. The Oriental lnsurance Company LtdJrespondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit the amount before the concerned Claims Tribunai. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). } k Sit/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge \J n \ s,’ " shyna Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge“; ‘