»»^°* i':- S':t 1^1 :.^' •&^^t^F>' !^:SfSsw^iSsf: •.^•^^^^'•^' (;'. fi :K'.! HON'BLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA.J 1359of 2. 1. NON-APPUCANTS Roop Chand, S/o Derharam Kynjam, aged about 48 years. | :Smt. Chaity Bai, W/o Roopcharpd , aged about 46 years. | Both R/o village Kushmi, Tah;l & Distt.Rajnandgaon(C.G.) i j :Umashankar Sahu, S/o Haliurg.m Sahu, aged ahout 40 yea^, Drlver, R/o Village Sundara, T^li. & Dist. Rajnandgaon (C; 2. % Present: The ShriAmiyakallt Nonefor ShriAbhisheki; following orcl is felainiaffltsl ®nawaraed;l Shi Trilochan Singh, S/o j'Truck.AranspQrter, Wo iTahs|i&Dlstt.Durg:(C.C3.) ITfje H^riental^ Insurancei |i-td. ^THrough;: Divisiorjal iDiMsiQnai OffiGe; Majlviyai |(C.Gij) Regd./' Mead Office 0ri^f Mouse A/25/27, Ashif Alii RoaB Delhi. MOTORlEHICLESACT.1973 T Sidha iWan,'®Qunset NQ. 1 ariicl2. i, GOtinsetfOrre fbr the appellahts Hol: February, :of the Court was |||eif|ifor:;;|nhar||sementlJE|i| ijei-t;y|0g .G.) Sin&h,, Nan^^elr, Nagar !pi(iijg RoaB, M nyi itt !the UN ;!):il.: !i ;t.'ll :h.l]l..-.II.J Irtttilt'^ B <'' .••s:: •s'. Ss, I l>-.-<i'!S^I t^'1 J i'is.., :: !<%^ '.^^:sS?§| ^vf.SiSs&^fSs Ciaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 04.10.2004, passed in Clgim CaseNo.79/2003. 2) The claimants, unfortunate .parents of deceased Ajay Kumar claimed compensatiDn of Rs.8,00,000/- by filing a clqim petition under Sectlon 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 23.04.2003, when his bicycle wi'as dashed by . the offending vehicle-Truck bearing registratjon No.Cg-07ZCy2839, resulting in his instantaneous death pn the spot itself. The claimants pleaded that their s<|sn Ajay Kumar v^as ith his aged about 19 years; student of 12In standard; used to assist fatherin his business. . 3) ,The;owneF, driver and insurer of the offendjnc jTruGk^.cont^tedj the' 'elaiijn ^and jBenied their ^ | liabii ^rnp||nsa||i8|niifo,tl'ie,clain-ian1^^TRg;jrisurer tookithe^ [ ' that deceas^cll. Ajay Kum^r ^himself : was, responsibl accident;thiedriverofthe;rryckwasnot holding a licence; andithe Truck was being-plied in breach of conditions. 4) The claimants examined AW-1..RQop Chandiand!.Ay^-2 Banshilal in support of their claim, whereas th&,dnv8F,| insurer of the offendingi vehicle Truck did not sxami witness in rebuttal. 5) Ths Tnibunal pn a ;eic|se,scrutjny of the evjdene^iNdi it held thatttie claimarrts' ^injuries^su^ained[,^liy^i|'ii1|ifi'j^.m!6tpraccideri1: Ithe aGdderitj occurrectl dy||;to s{?n^iay iKuimar;died| oth agoounljlslj -:.^\"^T"":7i" ~ •' .' : '• ' : ••"^'i~. ~'-^' ~f.C.'.~~~ '^•;."~ -: ggsttand negligeijt di-iSngji oni23. 5 driver of the offending vehic!e Truck; as the offending vehic|le Truck on the date ofthe accident was insured with the Orienial Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liab!le to pay compensation to the claimants. 6) The Tribunal findirig that the claimants' son AJay Kum^r i had no independent income at the time of the accident, assess^d his notional income at Rs.500/- per month and,Rs.6,000/- p^r annum. By^dedueting 1/3 of Rs.6,000/- towards his persohfal { :1 l : ':.•!. expenses, the claimants' dependency w^s assessed at Rs.4,000/- peFannum. By multipiying the annual dependency ^Rs.4,QpO/- with the multiptier of 12, the compensation:wais ^orked' -out.lto^^Rs.48,000/-. By^awarding further| sum ' cpf ^^,Q^fr'?t!M^R3|%!nerSli^:jex|ieiasis,| :the Tribunai awardedi ;a; iS)tal?9ifli^|^§(3jQ00^a^'e|:»rnR|nsati|3nto $he ctaimaiits forthipl death;|ofr tH^|FlS6n^ Ajay^ Kumar^^ ihtthe motor accident 23.04.2003. ;The Tribunal further directed payment of interest fl'ie above amount Of Rs.50,000/- @ 6% per annum from the d^S of Tiling of fhe ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment, 7) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari,; learned cottnsel for the appellant^ submitted that the Tribunal haserrediin assessing the'iiticomle the deceased-at Rs.SpQ/- per month:;ahct Rs.6,000/- p^rian|ujfl! only; and inawarding lowcomperisatioreofRs.50,000/-^nly.;|! l'':."',u^ ^: .1. . -j .••' ^i.:^J^ 8) Shri AbhjsheK Sinha, l^arnied c6unset for responcient Nja; ] Orientali Insurance; ^Qmiaay; ;iil-imitec!,: on i the sypported the Kfeimar Ftad no envsrd ^nd lilltKaf; M^d§cea^ed:.||JE| ^fiii(5QiiftB';t:Si'tt:l"ie:lda1:e^off!the!jaceiideri! il'lffl il';]jl t:: fi the compensation of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is jyst and propercompensaUonin the facts and circumstances of tbe present case.. 9) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against t(ie award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceasfed died on account ofthe injyries sustained by him in the mp^or accident on 23.04.2003; the driver of the offending vehicjg TrMCk was responsible for the accident; and the Insurer of the offendyig vehicle Truck was tiable to pay compensatiori io the claima^ts : 1 ; have now attained finality, That apart, these findings are ijiot under challenge before us:in this appeal. We, therefore, affjrm |the abowe findings recordecl by the Tribunal. i10) ;;True,ydeceased Ajay Kymai' 6n the date of the accitl^nf iwasi^gectj!at)syi|20!years. jt has come in the evidenee tt though he|vjras student oi12w stiandard, he used to assisjt^ father in his business. Ttie Tribunal, in our opinion, has f^ into error ira assessing the notional income of thej deeegs^sj Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per annum only. 11) In our opinion, the eontribution of deceased Ajay Kurr(^F enr ,!;:f^ atl the businsss of his.fath^r pind^heiGlaimapts' c^pendency|i0(ji can be safely takenatRs.12,0007-iper annum; Vy^th|!r8fi(ij '"lii propose to; recomputei the eon'iperisation'takinjg thl iG;l|in|i^r dependencyat Rs.12,QPQi|-peranFium. ^12). As iths ^ciaiman'tsjirgulj^ilen^^Bf^iecease^; multiplier'Sf 40s{^yld;^|ja|i^|p|a):e.mjtBe,'o^sei]irj',yie^ dictum of!t|ieja^xj©£ titjiih'Itie^ase!of;Municjp^( 'i.!-jj iiK.I rtl! 3: Its^ 1;;1: Inl?!i: ion:{ i'' :.F ifil llil :1;!^: m ilii 4'''^ ^ f ' '^. '•^-^^^ :N sfiSi!s^ isSK'" ; 'IS:L I^?3 Bt'i :u of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported jn 1 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplierof 10, the compensation w&rks out to Rs.1 ,20,( The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thi^s, the claimants become entitled to receive a tota! sum Rs.1,30,000/-as compensation for the death of their son Ajay Kumar in the motor accident on 23.04.2003. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a viejw of avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for whjch the claimants are entitled to receive jnteresf oih ithie ^hhaheie^ amouht of comperisation, the interest on |tlne enhaneed aRiount of con1pensatiQn|may be quantified jn f:t)is appea! itself.1 • 15) Considering all the reievant factors including the delayij disposal of the ctaim petition and the present appeal and ttie that the Insurance Company alone is not to be Iblamed for delay in the matter, we quantify the amount ofiinterest on enhanced amount of compensation pfi Rs.80,000/- at |Rs.2Q,DQSj|4{.! llllj 16) For the foregoing ireasons, the appeal fil|ed appeliants/ claimants foriQihaneement of the compenSaflo^ allowed in part. The compensatidn |Qf Rs.50, ttie Tribunal is enhancedjfi jR|:1,3|B,OQO/- with.1:tirthe^qtia|if|fi| iamount of iriterest^of Rsg I cbmpensali|ii Qf:isi§Q,( oniffie enhaHeecliamGinnllittfiil H'"'l';1 WaNNcf K 9 in Rtf ttitel! tti Wte:l llil: iil -i-II •Itll 1! 1 :i-i;L '.! i w f w 'tl'i. ^rl:?lj 6 11 U 17) Respondent No.3 Oriental insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time ifor depositing the fetal sum !of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rs.80,000/- tpwards enhanced amount: iof compensation + Rs.20,000/- towards quantified amount jof interest on the enhanced amouht of compensation |of Rs.80,QOO/-) before the concerning Glaims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I subbu li i "! •\\- .1 . ; -I