I Appenants Aha' J~ maimams i‘IEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH CGRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE SUN“. KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Anoeai Nu. 663 of 2003 1 Smt. Firantinbai, Wfo Netram Sahu, aged about 55 years. Netram Sahu, S/o Adhari Ram Sahu, aged abaut 60 yrs. Hemram Sahu, aged about 12 years; $10 {ate Ganeshram Sahu. Ku. Hemin Sahu, aged about 1O years, u/a n I:aLe £ Ganeshram oanu. t‘ l- Ku. Hemlata Sahu, aged about 8 years, D/o late Ganeshram Sahu. Om Prakash Sahu, aged about 6 years, D/o {ate Ganeshram Sahu. Bhupat Sahu, aged about 4 years S/o iate Ganeshram Sahu Appeuants No. 3,4,5,$ &7 represented hereby legal guardian Netram Sahu AH are R/o Badaipara, Raipur (C.G.) Rewondents Nan-amicams Versus Sardar Sukhdev Singh, G. Roadlines, GE. Road, Telibaadha, Raipur. Sanjay Borkar, S/o Narayan Borkar; aged about 23 years, occupation Truck Owner, R/s. Near New Bus Stand Tilda P.S. Nevra, Tahsii & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) The Oriental insurance Co. Lid. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Oftice, Commercial Complex, Devendranagar, Mode No.2 Raipur (C.G.,) iLra 1. Miscelianeous appeal under Section 173 of the Meter Vehicies Act Preseni : Shri AL Singraui, ieamed counsei for ihe appenants. Shri ShWei‘udu Pand‘y'a, learned counsel for respondent No. 2" Shri A.K. Athaiey, Iearned counse! for respondent Nc.3. CRDER (9"“ $eptember, 2910) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,94,096/~ awarded by the First Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.02.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No. 42/2002, the claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. for enhancement of the compensation. 2) The appellants} claimants, unfortunate children and parents of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu claimed compensation of Rs’32;10,QOQ/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.04.2002. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led ' before it held that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu died on account of a the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.04.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of‘ the offending vehicie Truck, bearing registration No.M.P.—23- DA/15?3; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident I e was msured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the insurance'Company couid not establish any breach of the poiicy canditionsi the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,0{)O/- per month. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.2,0DO/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 ,334/- per month and Rs.16,008/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,008/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,92,096/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,0DO/- towards funeral expenses; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.‘l ,94,0961— as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu in the motor accident, The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the'above amount of compensation of Rs.1,94,096/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L.‘Singraul, 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,2,000/— per month only; in deducting 1/3’d of the income of the deceased towards his personal 1 t expenses; in not awarding any sum towards ‘oss of estate; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,94,096/- only. 7) S‘hri AK. Athaiey, learned counsei for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited on the other hand submitted that ae the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pteaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1 94,096!- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Shivendu Pandyai learned counsel for respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle Truck, also supported the award. 9) I True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram .Sahu used to earn Rs.5,000/— per month as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rst2,000/- per month on its own estimate. 10) Considering that as many as 7 claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased, the deduction of 1/3'd of the income of ‘ the deceased made by the Tribune! towards his personal expenses certainly requires re—consideration. 1f.) in our opinion, 1/4‘“ of the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. We, therefore, assess the ciaimants’ dependency at t Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 1/4‘“ of Rs.24,000/—, annual income of the deceased, towards his personal expenses. ‘l 1.2) The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is also on the lower side considering that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu on the date of the accident was 38 years of age as shown in his postmortem report. ln our opinion, multiplier of 15‘would be appropriate in the present case in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Deihi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (200$) 6 SCG 121, wherein multiplier of 15 was prescribed for the age group between 36—40 years. 1.3) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rsl18,000/- with the multiplier of 15; the compensation works out to Rs.2,70,0DO/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000!— towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the patties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties aboutthe period for which the ciaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced a amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including .the deiay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal ryi and the fact that the Insurance Company a10ne 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.86,004/— at Rs.8,996i-‘ 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,94,096/— awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rst2,80,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,996/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of RsV86;004/-. 17) Respondent No.3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.95,000/— ‘(Rs.86,004/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Re.8,996/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.86,004/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. i i Sd/— i Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge [w Sd/- Chief Justice subbu in l