HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH L CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.89? of 2002 Hemant Kumar Shukla, Slo Kedar Prasad Shukla, 30 years, r/o Atang Teh Kurud, Distt Dhamtari Appellant Claimant V; VERSUS Respondents Vasudev Paswan, S/o Sahadev r/o Murhena Post, Rajvali Distt Navdar (Bihar) Non-applicants AI Bap?» ana r/o 350: Dey Shortleg W/o Sameer Kblkata Kumar - 91 Pin 700 O71 The United India Insurance Co Ltd., Branch Office — Div Office No.7 Shri Arvind Sarani, 102 Third floor Kolkata through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Kutchahary Chowk Raipur , Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 o Motor Vehicle‘ Act, 1988 Present: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. ‘ Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.v ORDER (6"‘ April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i , f 2 Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.09.2002, passed in Claim Case No.109/2002. 1 2. As against thecompensation of Rs.8,00,000/— claimed by 3 the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate son of deceased Hema Shukla, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for her death in the motor accident on 20.02.2000, the Tribunai uawarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% 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 deceased Hema Shukla died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 20.02.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.WB-23-7617; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, 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.1 ,300/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.800/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.500/— per month and Rs.6,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.6,000/- with the ‘ ,multiplier of 7, the compensation was worked out to Rs.42,000/-. The Tribunal considering that minimum amount payatiie under $'no fault Iiability’ was Rs.50,000/—, assessed the compensation payable t the claimant at Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000 uner other heads, the Trunal awarded a total sum of i/- d ib R60,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of t ‘ m d e dicted payment o interest on the above amount of compensation lre f of R 0/: @ 8% per annum from the dat o filing f the laim l titi till e t peon th date of actual paymen 6. Sh Santosh hara leamed unsel fo the appellant subted tht the Tunal has erred in warding low mit a rib a ompensation o s.60,000/— only. c f R 7. Shri Shreekumar Agrawa learned enior Counsel for y en o3 nit dia Limltd respondt N the Ued In Insurance Company e on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensatio of Rs.60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensatn in the facts and circumstances of the present io case Deceased Hema Shukla was aged about 53 years on the E date of the accident The claimant pleaded that his mother Hema l Shukla used to earn Rs 100/- per day by stitching cloths and by ‘ preparing Agarbathis ’ 9. ln our consrdered opinion, the compensation of Rs.60,000l— awarded by the Tribunal is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably ls. deceased Hema Shukla in the otor accient. Th Tribunal further i l l l l l l l i { o i l l s 60 00 e f o c i rr Bt co r l l ; l S n 10. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make l the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just And proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1t. a The appeal tiled by the for enhancement s appeal by appellant/claimant l of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.1 1 ,OOOI- inclusive of interest component o‘n the enhanced amount ofcompensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal. l 12. Respondent No.3 United India insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of i RisJ 1 ,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. i M// 13. No order as to costs. Sdl— f 5w. ,1 Sun“ Kumar Sinha ‘ I ‘ CHIEF JUSTICE Judge subbu