\ HEGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGAIRH AT BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA: MA. No. 20 of 200% APPELLANTS 1. Ram Kumér S/o Deluram Nirmalkar, Aged about 3O years, 2. Ku. Seema D/o Ram Kumar Nirmalkar, Aged about 8 years, Shyam Kumar, S/o Ram Kumar Nirmalkar, Aged about 2 years, Appellant No. 2 &.‘3 are minor and through natural guardian Ram Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Deluram Nlrmalkar An R/o Village- Gama, P.s. & Tehsll- Baloda Bazar, Dist: Raipur (C.G.) Versus Kejuram Sfo Uday Ramdhruv, Aged about 45 years, R/o Shrl Agrasen Rice Mill Lavan Road. Balod'a Bazar, Permanent R/o Village Mirgi, P.S. Bhatapara (Village), Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) (Driver of the Accidental Vehicle No. CG-04G-0126) M/s Agrasen Rice industries Through its proprietor Naresh Chandra S/o Choutmal Kedia, Lavan road, Baloda Bazar (Registered owner of the offending vehicle) The Oriental insurance Company Through its- Sr. Divisional Manager Division (Mandal) ofnce No. 2 VChawla Complex, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 RESPONDENTS Aggearance: Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for respondents .1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal and Mi. P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent No.3. -*> e\ 2 M.A. No. 20 of 2006 LORAL ORDER} (1 8.01 .201 1) § t J ‘ Following order of the Conrt was passed by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. i1) ’The appeiiants/claim'ants have flled this :appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 10/2005 by the‘Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Baloda Bazar, (C.G.), vide award dated 20.10.05. (2) The appeiiants/ciaimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased- Smt. Duiaurin Bai flled a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act ciaiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for her death in motor accident on 20.01.2005. The appeiiants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 30 years ” and She was earning Rs. 80l- per day and 2400/- per month. (3) The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of evidence lead before it, held that the deceased was earning Rs. 40/— per day by working as labourer. Assuming that she must be getting the work for about 25 days in a month, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 1,000/- and heir annual income was assessed as Rs. 12,000/-. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of'the deceased, the Tribunal determined the dependency of the appellants as Rs. 8,000/-. By using multiplier of 17 to the annual dependency of Rs. 8,000/—, the compensation was é worked out to Rs. 1,36.000l-. By adding further sum of Rs. 32,5001- under other hands, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,68,5OOI- as the compensation to me appellants for the death of deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of frling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. (4) _ Since. the insurance company could not establish any breach of policy s conditions, therefore, the Tribunal held that the respondents were jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. ”2 f 3 M.A. No. 20 of 2006 (5) Mr. Ai‘uil Singh Rajput, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the appeHant, argued that the Tribunal has assessed a low income of the deceased; therefore, a low compensation has been awarded to the appellants. (6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. (8) The appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 80l- per uay by doing labour work. To substantiate the above plea, the appellants examined Ram Kumar Nirrnalkar (Apellant No.1 himself A.W.1) and Omprakash Nirmalkar (A.w.2.). (3) Ram Kumar Nirmalkar (A.W.1) deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. SGI- per day. Omprakash Nirmalkar (A.W.2) deposed that deceased was working as labour with him and he was paying Rs. 80/- per day to the deceased. The Tribunal, on appreciation of entire evidence, held thatsince no records relating to the said payment of the deceased was tiled by the appellants or the employer of the deceased; it was not safe to rely on the oral testimony of the above witnesses about income of the deceased. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances, the Trriuunal ‘L.A held that since the deceased was working as a labourer, she must be getting Rs. 4OI- per day. The accident took place in the year 2005. We uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was working as a labourer, however, we are of the view that in th year 2005, she must be getting Rs. 50-6OI- per day by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation by holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/— per annum. (10) By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased‘from Rs.. 18,000I- the annual dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 12,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was aged in between 30-35 years @ 4 M.A. No. 20 of 2006 and has applied the multiplier of 17. Looking to the age of the deceased and the appellants as also the dictum in judgment of Sarla Verma {SMzl & Ors. --—Vs- Delhi Transgort Corgration & Another, (20091 6 SCC 121, we deem it appropriate to apply multiplier of 16. By applying multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency of Rs. 12,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs. 192,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs. 13,000/— under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 2,05,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.‘1 68 500/. By deducting Rs 1 68 500l— from 2 05 000/- the difference comes to Rs 36 500l- which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation for the death of deceased in the motor accrdent on 20 01 2005 (11) To avmo nurther complications and looking to the delay caused in disposai of the Claim Petition as also the claimant’s appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.3500/- in this matter. (12) Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.40,000f— more (Rs.36,500/— as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.3500/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which they shall receive from the United India Insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3. (13; The United India Insurance Company Ltd/respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. (14) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shallrbe no orders as to the cost Sdl- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Judge