7 ^ ..^ ,^ ^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DLVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 627 of 2011 Holsai, s/o Dila Ram, aged about 50 years, occupation Agriculture, r/o village & P.0. Chungadi, tehsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS 1 Sanjay Kumar Singh s/o late Brijnandan Singh aged about years, P.S. Makdump.ur, district Jahanabad (Bihar) Owner/ Driver of vehicle 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. Insurer of vehicle Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Anand Dadaria and Shri Ashish Surana, for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (18th November, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents ^ /^l. M.A.C.No. 627 of 2011 Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.02.2011, passed in Claim Case No.57/2008 (Old No.80/2008). 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate father of deceased Mohelal, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.06.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a elose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant's son Mohelal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor acc?dent on 29.06.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.B.R.13G-1888; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant 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.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimant's dependency was assessed at ^ ./ MAC.No. 627 of 2011 l_ Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation wasworked out to Rs.90,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his son Mohelal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- @ 7.5% per annum. 6) Shri Anand Dadaria and Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- only. 7) Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the sole claimant in the case is aged about 60 years, the compensation of Rs. 1,10,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Deceased Mohelal was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident. He was a driver by occupation. The sole claimant in the present case is his father Holsai found to be aged about 60 years by the Tribunal. 9) As the evidence led by the claimant before the Tribunal about the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.8,000/- per month is not reliable, we do not find any infirmity in the ••••^ , ^••-^..'^ •^ "^ ^ I '^Bs.. I] t.A.IS ../ ^^^^^•^ ""%^^^:" M.A.C.No. 627 of 2011 r^o] 4. -^ assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 10) The claimant's dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal atRs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% ofthe income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as deceased Mohelal was unmarried on the date of the accident. The above view of the Tribunal is perfectly inline with the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. . 11) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) As mentioned above deceased Mohelal was aged about 28 years and the sole claimant in the case is father Holsai was found to be aged about 60 years by the Tribunal. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes multiplier of 9 for the age group between 56- 60 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 9 would be appropriate in the present case. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- i with the multiplier of 9, the compensation works out to Rs.1,62,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of .^' ''^ ^. l 1, A ^S r.., &,v'^Kfy^>" „<;;•' ^:J"ff^"'y^ MAC.No. 627 of 2011 ^... estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation for the death of his son Mohelal in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.62,000/-at Rs.8,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,72,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.62,000/-. 17) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) (Rs.62,000/-towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of MAC.No. 627 of 2011 compensation of Rs.70,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge