Q? HIGH $QUR? OF $HHAT?!3G§$H EELA$PUR M comm: Han’bie Shri £a§eev GuQia, C4. & M Hcn’b!e Shri 3mm Kumar Sinha J. Mi$c. AQQea! Mo. $82 'af 20G2 Smt. Saroj Bai and athers vs. Shiv Kumar Sahuand athera: ORDER For Gon$ideration :7 sw— Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘5k1JLm‘ Judge r. ‘ I X HQN’BLE SHR! JUS?! W $E RAjEEV GUPTA \9 ge7?//)ag 1 Sdl- 5 Chief Justice P0$t for Order :20‘04/‘20? 0 {w ‘ Sd/— ‘ : Suni! Kumar Sinha { Judge @ HIGH GQUR‘E’ DF CH§€ATH$$ARHg BILASVPUR CORAM: Hon’bie $hri Rag‘eev Gugta: SJ. & H0n’b!e Shré Siam Kumar sinha, J. Misc. Aggeai Na. 132 9f 2GG2 APPEUJWTS 1 Smt. Sam} Bai widcw 0f iate Amamath, GLAIMANTS aged abom 32 years. 2 Vishal Ram Sic Late Amamaih, ageci abcut 12 years. Kumarti Pragati Dr’s Late Amamath, aged about 9 years. 4 Satish Sla Late Amamath, aged about 6 years. Appenant Na. 2 to 4 are minor and represented by their mother, appellant No.1. AH are Rio Viltage Bhursa Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG) OJ Vei‘sus RESPGNDENT$ 1. Shiv Kumer 8ahu Sio Shiwpeojan Sehu, Abhisek Road wedge, Bhanpurt, Raipur(C.G.) ‘ Permanent Address ie Abhieek Road wadge, Virrage a Po. Ghagh'ra, Distt. §umta Jharkhand (STATE) 2. Branch Manager, Natienal insurance Company Ltd. Patket Road, Gumie, Jharkhand 835207. 3. Nagendra Singn S/o Végay Singh, Rio Village Etta Chiltari, P.O. Etta, P.S.H. Bede, Distt. Ranchi (Jharkhand) MISé. APPEAL UNDER $ECTION 1'13 OF THE MQTQR VEHQCLES ACT Aggeerance: Mrs. Meena $hastri, Ceunsel for the apeellants. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.Dashrath Gupta Counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3 '——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— YWW L 1 J l {V 2 Misc. Aggea: M6. 132 at 2992 @ omER (2034,2919) W uni: Kurnar $inha J. Foilowing order of the Court was delivered by The appeliants/claimants have mad ihié appeal for enhancement of Member, Meter , District Jashpur (0.8.) vide i1} compensation awarded in Ciaim Case No.08/2Ci0fi by the Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Jashpurnagar award dated 19“? af October 2001. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : The appeHants, unfortunate widow, minor sens and daughter of deceased- Amamath, fiied a ciaim petition under $ecti‘on 166 of the Motor Vehictee Act ciaiming compensation of Rs.8,39,2DO/~ for his death in the motor accident on 16.93.2000, when the Baiaj two wheeier M—8O bearing registration No.M.P.26 K.C./3862, on which the oeceased was travelling as a pillion rider, was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No.M.P.-23-D.A.!2?80 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. ' The appetiante pleaded that the deceased was aged about 38 years and was earning Rs.1800i— per month by doing labour work and eelting milk. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver: and the driver, owner and insurer of the truck were jointiy and severaily liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/~ per month. After deducting 1/3” towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the dependency was worked out to Rs.‘IUOG/- per month and Re.’i2,GOO/— per annum. The Tribtinai appiied muitipiier of t2 to the said annuai dependency of Rst ZOGOI- and the compensation was worked out to Rs? ,44,0dO/- . By adding further sum of Random under other heads, the total s S t2) .7 3 , ' a\ Misc. Apggaj‘ MG. 1.82 0f 2902 ‘ 093 amoum m‘ campetisation was worked gut to Rs.3,50,000i—. The Tribunal alsa awarded interest @ 9% per annum fmm the data of fiiing of the claim petition tili it$ reatization. {3i Mrs. Meena Shastri, {earned counsei appearing on behalf of the aopellants raised oniy one point. She argued that a row multiplier has been applied end a low compensation has been awardetl to the appellants. (4t 0n the other hand, Mr. Deepak Jain and Mr. Dashrath Gupta, teamed counsei appearing on behaif of the respective respondents opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by‘ the Ciaims Tribunal. i5) We have heard teamed counsel for the parties at iength and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) Admittediy, deceased Amarnath was aged about 38 years on the date of the accident and his widow - appeliant No1 was aged about 32 years. His minor son namely Vishal Ram was aged about 12 years, his minor daughter Kumari Pragatl was aged about 9 years and another minor son nameiy Satish was aged about 8 years. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the muitipiier of 1.2 applied by the Tribunai does not appear to be proper. in our considered View, looking to the age of the deceased and the appellants, the appropriate multiplier would have been 15. Therefore, we propose to recompute the compensation by appiying muitipiier of 15 in this matter. t?) By multiplying the annuai dependency of ,Rs.t2,DDOI- with the muitipiier of t5 the compensation works out to Rst ,80,SGDI-. By adding further sum of Rs.t0,0GD/— under other permissible heads, the total l 4 Misc. A eai Na. 132 cf 260?; amount of campensatfon Comes to R3. 1,QG,DQO/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000f-. By deducting this amount from Rs.1,QO,GGO!-, the difference comes to Rs.40,00G/-, which the appeltants are entitled to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation on account of death of deoeaeed — Amarnath in the motor accident. {3} To avoid further compiicatione and tacking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimanta’ appeat and that the insurance Company alone cannot be biamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantity ae Rs.4ODO/- in this rnatter. t5) Therefore, the appeliants are entitied to receive a sum of Re.44000/- more (Rs.40t)DO/- as the enhanced amount of oomnensation + Rs.4000f- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanceo amount) which they shalt receive from the insurance Company. (tot The National insurance Company Ltdjrespondent No.2 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Ciaime Tribunal. (tti The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shail be no order as to cost(s). "Mme‘ex , xx Sdl~ Chief Justice Sd/~ " R j SunilKumar Sinha \e Judge . L/ rm, "\~ t i , l l l l Live Ne‘. shyna Wt ‘