j, HEGH CGUR? O? HATHSGARH A? B§LAS§3UR m £3€OE§ BENCH CQQI-Wi: §§QN’BLE SHRI RAJEFé! GiiPTA, GJ. H9N’8LE $HRI 8UNH.’ KLIWIAR $§NHA5 &. Wsc. Appea§ Na. 13$ 9f 2w: 's‘a gSméa‘mg 1. Maenadevi, WdJQ. Hamarayan, aged ;§pp§%can’ia/ about 27 yeaa’s. Claimgnig 24 Sushii Kumar, aged about g years. ‘« on Kumari Rekha, aged about 7 yeam, 4. - Kumairi Rubiya; aged abeut 5 years; SL Na. 2 to 4 sen and daughters of iaie Shri Harnarayan ’Prasad $ingh, minor thrcugh natura: and defacto Guardian moiher Smt. Meenadevi, Wd/o. iate ShrE Hamarayan Prasad Singh, A}! R/o. Vii!a§es Nagarpur, pos? — §eea9ndems Badka Singhanpura Tahsu — Bhojpur, d§stt. Baxar (Now {n Jhérkhand) Vexsus Maharashtra Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd. 2G/2 Noe-appiicants Laeudiya Mourya, AB. Road Dewas Naka mdere. Sureeh Kumar, Slo. Ramkumar Jat, aged about 27 years, Rio. Mahudadi, Poiice Statien — Houjam, Distt. Pipani (Hafiyanaf; ‘thrsugh : Cio. Maharashtra Road Carrier Private Limited, Kanpuri‘ Raipur (CG): Gyan Singh, S/o‘ Harisingh, aged about 4&3 years Chita Garage 106, B.T. Road, Koikata (W.B.) The United india insurance Company Limited ihrough the Branch Manager, the Uniied lndia insurance Company, Kamthi iine, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (613.) ii CH ,g WEE. Amoeai undm Seciioin W3 0f ihe Metor Veh§6ie 9.9: 1%83 ren: Shri PKG. Tiwayi, ieamed Senior counsei wh Shri Rakesh Thakur, geamed counsei fer the appeiiam None fer respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghamhyam Paw, learned counse! for respondent No.4 (5 Mayoy " The foHowing order of the Court was passed by Ragey Gugte, Gm; e This is ciaiments’ agopeal for enhancement of the comensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents p Cieime Tribunai; Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribune?) vide award dated 03.1 ’i .2001, passed in Ciaim Case N0. 85/1999 2. The appeiiants/ oiaimants, unfortunate widow and minor chiidren 0f deceased Harnereyan, ciaimed compensation of Rs.3066,000f— by filing a claim petition under Setien 166 Qt the i o Motr Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 2208.984 o 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Hamarayan died on acccunt of the injuries suetained by him in the motor accident on 22.08i198; the g accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck being registration NoMPGQ KB 0832; ar ae the offending ’vehicle Truck; on the date of the accident was insured with the United lndia insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants. Pset it ‘ 1“ a R Dgg 4‘ As the re$ponc§ents have not fiied any $ppea! against the award; the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attaineci fihatity. 5. iThe Tneunei assessed the income of the deceased at Re.2,:000f— ger month and Rs.24,000f— per annum. By deducting 1.!3’” ef .e.24,090!— towards the persona! expenses of the deeeaeed, the ciaimahts' depencienoy was assessed at R31 6,GDU/— pet annum‘ By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000l— with the multiplier ‘of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000!~ towards lose of consortium to the widow and Rs.2,0G0/~ towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,95,0GO/~ as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Wing of the daim petitien tin ihe date of actual payment. 5. Shri PKG. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel foi’ the appellants submitted that the Tribune! has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence ataout the income of the deceased and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,95,0DO/— onlyl 7i Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patet, iearned counsel for the United lndia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,95,000!— awarded by the Tribunal ls just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present H €rm~m Vw ‘ ,y' v 8. True, the ciaimants pieaded that deceased Harnarayan was gatting saiary of R$.3,000/- per manth as truck driven no reiiabie evidence was ied befare the Tribunal it) estabiish the income of the deeeésee to that extent Even the employer of the deceased was net examined t0 estabiish the income of the deeeased to that extent. We, therefore; do not find any fautt in the approach of the x . t Tribune} in dissenting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased Q. ' Nevertheiese‘, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.2,000/— pet month anei Rs.24,000!- per annum is certainty on the iower side and requires reconsideration. “xiii. Considering that deceaeect Harnarayan was a truck driver aged about 28 years, we are of the opinion that the Tribune! ought to have assessed his income at Rs.2,5DO/— per month and Re.3Q,QOD/- per annurn. We, therefore propose to re—compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs2i509i— per month and Rs.3{),QD01- per annum. ii. By deducting the usuai 1/3” of Re‘30,00Ci/~ towards the personal expenses of the deceaeed, the oiaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000f— per annum. 12‘. Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and minor children, we are of the opinion that muitipiier of t6 wouici be appropriate in the present case. _ i3. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.2i3,tJGC!/~ with the muttiptier of i6, the compensation works out to Rs.3,20,00EJ/~. The . ciaimants are further entitled to gei a sum of Rs‘5,00D/— tmwaards fun‘erai expensss; Rs.5,0GQ/’- fay imss of estate; and R5.5,00'0/- for ies‘s ef censomum to the widew. The c1aimant$, thus, become f eniitied to receive a total sum of Rs.3,35,000/— aS campensaimn fay the cieath of deceased Hamarayan in the moier accidergt. 14. Learned counsei far the partlee submitted that with a View ta r avers; ‘any possible dlspute between the parties abeul the period fer which fhe claimants ate entitled te recelve iaterest on the enhanced ameunt at compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this epeeal itself. t5. Ceneidering at! the relevant factere including the delay in dieeoeat of the claim petition and the present appeal and the taet that lnsurance Company alone is not to be biamed for the entire delay tn the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhaneed amount of compensation et Rs.40,QOO/~ at Ret t ,000f- 16. For the foregoing reasone, the appeal tiled by the appetiante/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Re.2,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.3,35,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Reiti,QOG/~ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-. t? Respondent No4 The United lndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of RsEthDQX- (Rs.40,000i- towards enhanced amount of oomoensation + RsiLGOOk towards quantified amount of interest o the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,QOO/-) before n the concerning Claims Tribunal‘ 18. N0, order a3 to costs. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE #‘1 Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ‘ \ i X \ i