n IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATUREOF CHHAmSGARHAT BILASPUR ..^ MISCELLANEPUS APPEALfC) NG^ ')' /2007 (MemorandumofAppealunderSection 173 ofMotbr Vehicle Act 1988) Applicants ^- •'^. /^' /y^ ^' Respondents 3on Claimants) 1, J- Parvati aged 30 years W/o Darshan Singh R/o Fish Market, Zone-2, Bhilai, District Durg(C.G) Sai-jeet Singh aged 5years S/o Late Darshan Singh Gurmeet Singh aged 3 year S/o Late Darshan Singh (Mother and Natural Guardian Claimant no.l on behalfofAppellantno.2&3) A1I abov^ R/o | Fish Market, %one-2, Bhilai, District Durg(C.G) VERSUS SuchaSinghaged S/o Arjun Singh Pandori Adwat Permanent R/o|P.S. Hariyana, District Hoshiyaarpur( Punjab) Temp. Res: Do Balba Transport Corporation, Mumbai( Maharastm) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Reg.No. GQB/4980) Amarjeet Kaui-, W/o Joginder Singh R/o Balba Transport Gorporation, Mumbai (Maharastra) (Owner Of Offendmg Vehicle Tmck Reg.No. GQB/4980 ) The New India^ Insurance Company LTd. Through: Branch Manager,,Durg District Durg(C.G) (Policy Reg. With Rourkela Branch wrongly mentioned in Application as Baroda Branch) (Insurance Company Of Offending Vehicle Truck Reg.No. GQB/4980 ) (Reg. Policy N0.^155050101921) MEMORANDUM OF'APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHIGLEACT1988 '^^»<^:. 2. 2. ^ X. ^-f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IVI.A. (C) No. 327 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAiMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS Parvati, W/o Darshan Singh and others. Versus Sucha Singh and others. Miscellaneous aopeal under Section 173 of the Motor VehidesAct.1988 D.B: Hon'bSe MrJustiGe N.K.Aaarwal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N.Chandrakar Present : Shri Anurag Jha, counsei for the appellants. Shri Deepak Gupta and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the respondent No.3. Per N.K. Aaarwal. J AWARD (22.11.2011) This is cjaimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (F.T.C.), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 16/2004 vide award dated 25.8.2006. t As against compensation of Rs. 7,25,000/- ciaimed by unfortunate widow and chiidren of deceased Darshan Singh by fijjng claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Veteicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 8.12.1994, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,18,500/- to the ciaimants aiong with interest @ 5% per annum from 16.8.1999 till its actual payment. The Tribunai, on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied, held : the accident h^d occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of offending,.Y&hic!e truck bearing registration No. BQB/4980 by its 'l driver i.e;<respondent No. 1 ~ Sucha Singh; deceased Darshan Singh died 'qn ^ccount of injyries sustained by him in the said accident; respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company iiabie for payment of compensation as it could not estabiish the vjolation of poljcy conditions; assessed and awarded aforementioned ••^w-^^ J^, "'^ ( 8. y<fc amount of compensation to the claimants along with interest 5 percent per annum from 15.8.1999 ti!l itsactual payment. Learned counsei for the appellants wouSd submit: the Tribunai has erred in taking intoconsideration the monthly income ofthe deceased as Rs.1,750/- only; in awarding Rs.8,500/- only on other heads and in awarding low amount of compensation to the daimants. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, supported the award impugned and submitted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. We have heard learned counsei appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including award Impugned. . , The facts that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 8.12.1994 and the fnsurance Company couid not establish the violation of policy conditions are now not in dispute. True, the cSairnants pleaded the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by working as Mechanic but appeilants/claimants failed to substantiate the same. Therefore, we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day. However, the Tribunal has certainly erred in holding deceased was working for 25 days on!y in a month, the Tribunal should have taken monthly income of the deceased by multjplying daily income of Rs.70/- with 30 days. Further the Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.8,500/- only on other heads. Therefore, we pro|ose to re-compute the amount of compensation by takingjhto consideration the income ofthe deceased as Rs.70/- perday;^Rs.2,100/- per annum and Rs.25,200/- per annum. After deducting usual 1/3rd of annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, claimants yeariy dependency is assessed at Rs. 16.800/-. IK! <^ 10. Looking to the age of deceased as 45 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 1 4 would be appropriate in view of the dictum of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (20091 6 SCC 121 wherein the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41 to 47 years. 11. By multiplying the claimants annual dependency of Rs.1 6,800/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation on account of loss of dependency to the claimants works out to Rs.2,35,200/-. The claimants/appellants are further entitled for Rs. 15;000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- each on account of funera! expenses, ioss of consortium and loss of estate), and thus the claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,50,200/- as compensation instead of Rs. 2,18,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeat filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 2,18,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,200/-. The appeilants/daimants are further entitted to receive Rs.31,700/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunai. The appellants/claimants are aiso awarded Rs.8,300/- as quantified interest upon the enhanced amount of compensation. Thus, the appellants/claimant are awarded Rs.40,000/-. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 13. The respondent No. 3/The Newlndia Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time to deposjt enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- before the concerned ClaimsTribunal. 14. No order Sis to costs. D/- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge v^. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge