/^^\,^'^^^. 7\ ^ L'^' "y^ A .e^ ^?a&"" ^?^''-. .^y%^ :::;Ts-i&'^^ ^'I^^^"' ^ •kj 1 ^•.;- f^ Vl't IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M.A.ro ^ff /^s^^iagts t APPELLANTS: 1., Smt. Sefali Sarkar Wd/o late Mantu /(ftAIMANTS Sarkar, aged about 34 years , Minor Mukesh Sarkar S/o late Mantu Sarkar, aged about 14 years 3,- Minor Ku. Basanti Sarkar D/o late Mantu Sarkar, aged about 12 years Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minor through legal guardian mother appellant No. 1, Smt. Sefali Sarkar All R/o Village P.V.- 20, Pakhanjur, Thana and Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Presently R/o Ekta Nagar, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker(C.G.) Versus Rajkumar N. S/o Gattaiya, aged about 26 years, Occupation vehicle Driver and Owner, R/o 8-3-155 Mallikaarjun Nagar, Godawari Khani Kareem Nagar, District Kareen Nagar, (Andhra Pradesh) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch l-1aidrabad, Post Haidrabad (Andhra Pradesh) (Insurance Company) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 RESPONDENTS: ^ON-CLAIMANTS- 1. /"' 2. ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. J. M.A.fCl No.544 OF 2009 Smt. Sefali Sarkar and others ^n^ Appellants Clajmants Respondents Non-claimants Vs Rajkumar and another Present: Mr. SC Verma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 despite sen/ice of notice. Mr. SS Rajput, counsel for the respondent No. 2/lnsurance Company. ORDER(Oral) (14th July, 2011) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 17th June, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker, (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 74/2007, for enhancement ofthe amount ofcompensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.5.2007 deceased Mantu Sarkar was working as Hamal (Labourer) in lcer Truck No. MP 15 W/4914. He was taking fjsh in that vehide. The said vehjcle was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the truck met with an accident and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the same c»n the spot. The deceased was 45 years on the date of accident and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a daim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for a tota! compensation of Rs.8,05,000/- under different heads against the death of Mantu Sarkar. 3. However, learned Tribunal after close scrutiny of the evidence, documentary and oral, led by the parties, and after providing them opportunity of hearing, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,28,400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants by the impugned award. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. \—~ .4^^ %, ^^- ^ 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-, which, at the minimum, ought to have been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. He further contends that looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier applied for computjng Joss of dependency has been on the lower side, which ought to have been, at least, 14. !t is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs.10,000/- under all otherconventional heads, which appears to be on the lower side, therefore, the same should also be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company supports the impugned award so far as it relates to quantum of compensation. 7. From perusal of the impugned award, it is clear that the Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-, but according to the claimants, the deceased used to work as a labourer in the vehjcle in question, jn which fishes were transported. The accident is of the year 2007. In 2007, wage of the labourer cannot be taken to be less than Rs.100/- per day and as such, monthly income of the deceased can safefy be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased left behind him his wife and two minor children. Thus, iooking to the number of dependants j.e. 3, 1/3rd i.e. Rs.12,000/- has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased and 2/3rd i.e. Rs.24,000/- has to be taken as contribution of the deceased towards his family. Therefore, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. The apparent age of the deceased, as per postmortem report, is 50 years. Therefore, as per multiplier table identified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 13 hasbeen prescribed for the age group of 46-50. Thus, by applying muJtiplier of 13, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. 8. The Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs.10.000/- under all other conventional heads i.e. for loss of consortium, for loss of love & affection and for funeral expenses, however, the same appears to be '^ ^ r i:,^,.. ^ ^ ''<1&^ f! ^ '^ /'/ '^^/' '2-- on lower side. Therefore. it would be appropriate to award Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses to the claimants. Thus, by adding the above amount of Rs.15,000/-, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,27,000/-, which the claimants are entitled to receive. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 17th June, 2008 is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants/claimantsshall be entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.3,27,000/- from respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, along with simple interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition tiil its payment is made. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by respondent No.2/lnsurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made cfear that the amount, if any, deposited by respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid amount. However, there shall be no order as to costs. u 10. Certifjed copy as per rules. Sd/- G.Minhaiuddin Judge