Appellants ]]! » HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. IVlisc. Appeal No. 36S of 2003 1. Subelal Banjare, S/o Shri Sonu Ram Banjare, aged about 50 years. 2. Smt. Rukhmani Bai Banjare, W/o Shri Sube!a! Banjare, Aged about 40 years. 3 Kuber Banjare, S/o Shri Subelal Banjare, Aged about 14 years. All R/o Village & Tehsil - Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mohd. Ajaz Khan @ Pintu, S/o Shri Mohd. Taj Khan, Aged about 30 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Ashwani Nagar,Raipur, District Raipur 2. Smt. Anju Sharma, W/o Shri Brijesh Sharma, aged about 40 years, R/o Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, United India insurance Company, Ltd., Urbaiii Branch No.2, Madina Bullding!, Jail Road, Raipur, DisSrict RaiRui' Memorandym of appeal under Sectlon 173 of the Motor Vehtetes Resoondents Act. 1988 i.ili I Present: Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel forthe appettants. None appeara for rsspondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior counsel viflth Shri Anand Gupta, Searned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (11mFebruary,20S8) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ctaimants' appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to,as "the Act") for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, vlde award dated 16.01.2003, passed in Claim Case No.223/2002. (2) The claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Toran, claimed compensation of Rs.10,35;000/- by fiting a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for his death in the motor accident on 1 2.08.2001 when the jeep bearing registration MP-23L/8728 in which he was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Trax bearing registration No.MP-24-G-0818, resulting in instantaneous death of Toran on the spot. The claimants further pleaded that deceased -Toran, who was aged about 18 years used to earn Rs. 100-125/- per day as Carpenter. (3) The owner, driver and the insurer contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the M ifc .)... claimants. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle Trax pleaded that the claim petition suffered from the defect of non-impleadment of the driver, owner and insurer of ttie jeep. The insurer of the Trax, on the other hand, took the plea that the driver of the Trax was not holding a valid driving license and the Trax was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. (4) The claimants examined AW-Rukmani Bai in support of their ctaim, whereas the owner, driver and insurer did not examine any witness In rebuttal. (5) The Tribunal on the evidence led by the parties held that Toran died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehtele Trax; as the Trax ^was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. (6) The Tribunat did not find the evidence led about the income of the deceased reliable and therefore, asse^ed his income at Rs.1,300/- per month. By deductlng Rs.500/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per annurrj. < • ' i By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/- yvith the muttiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.9^,000/-. f :. .i By awardlng a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other pe.rmi^ible heads, a total sum of Rs.1,06,000/- was awarded by thej 'T'ritsunial ^. ' ^-^ \ as compensation to the claimants for the death of Toran in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,06,000/-. (7) Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and another vs. Musafir Paswan and another (2005 ACJ 99) submitted that the claimants atleast deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Toran in the motor accident. (8) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the case as the appellants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded bythem. (9) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased - Toran died on account of the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 12.08.2001 ; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Trax; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Trax was tiabte to|pay compensation to the claimants, have now attained finality as> the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award.i That apart, there is ovenwhelming evidence availableon record to ! i_ establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubtj WVe, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Trlbunal in that behalf. (10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1 ;06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation In the facts and cireumstances of the present case. (11) The Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and another (Supra) while assessing the compensatlon payable to the claimants in the said case observed in paras 1 to 4 as under: "In this case a 13 years old boy was killed in an accident on 2.7.1998. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent drlving bythe driver of the truck. The Tribunal, whilst awarding compensation, fixed a sum of Rs.90,000/- on the basis that it considered that amount to be just, proper and reasonable. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. 2. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. V. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the grourtdi that payment being made is just compensation. IB has been held that the multiplier method must t^ei accepted method for determining and ensuringl payment of just compensatlon as it is the m^hqdi which brings uniformity and certainty to awardsi made all over the country. In viaw of this authority,| it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method. 3. As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non- earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/- 4 We accordingly modify the award to be in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest as awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingty. No order as to costs." (12) Reverting to the case in hand, the Tribunal found that deceased - Toran, son of appellants No.1 S 2 and brother of appellant No.3 died in the motor accident on 12.08.2001. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased - Toran used to eam Rs.100-125/- per day as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Be that as it may, the faet remains that deceased - Toran, whowas aged about 18 years ert the time of accident lost his life in the motor aecldent which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of t^ie offending vehicle Trax. Considering the fact that deceased - Toran was aged about 1 8 years, we are of the opinion that the appellants are also entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- :l'i aswas awarded by the Apex Court in the above quoled judgmeW in the case of Manju Devi and another (Supra). I i ••:•:taMtTB (SAljiijt^:!; .i (ii i.stfijE'!^ Subbu (13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/-. The appellants are further entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. (14) Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- and the amount of interest on the said compensation within a period of 2 months from today before the concerning Claims Tribunal. (15) No order as to costs. sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge