.•-;L~U^^^ ^ •- ..^.' •fi Kesss @ ;^rii>B'E ";ORflM' HON'RI F SHR) R&.iFFU •'i»^'5"^^^i B E Sa!^'-a*Q S^»a,d«l^^;S it"l!L3 3 "!tL..?°1^'£«.£«. vrw ^ *f a ffis-t. Misc. No.233 of 2001 Appeiiants Claimants s^. CS Naravan Singh, S/o Chhedulal Kanwar -1/1 age 24 years Mankunwar, W/o Jethsingh Kanwar aged about 85 years Chandro Bai, W/o Chheduisi Kanwar age 35 vears 4 Mlnor Amita aae 14 vears D/o Chheduis! Kanwar, iViinor Gansshwar S/o Chhedu!< Kanwar, age 11 years Minor Bhuneshwar, S/o Chhedulai Kanwar, age 09 years Minor Pawan Kumar. S/o Chheduiai Kanwar, age 07 years Appellant No.4 to 7 through his natural fluardian mother Chandro Bai, w/o Chheduia! Kanwar A!l R/'o Viilage Kartata, Distt Korba (CG) . ^^»t^^^*^^^- -?~'/fat l/tt [^- * i.ansia, i ansi Ressondsnfs Lekhan Prasad Rathoi Rathore, Age - 30 ye< ear Bus Stand, Time Centr !a, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) 2 Branch Manaaer. United Snsurance Company Limited, Op| Talkies, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Sndia GOD! ••_^nwNKilfiit.' T: •• ^.' •;';^,- ^' ':' '•w !%, wiisceilurseous ApDeal under Section 173 of Motor Veh 'resent : yihri Amit Sharma, counsei for the appeliants. Ms Anju Ahuja, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri HB Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Shrs P Agrawal, counse! for respondent No.2. it\CS:| i.0ji The foltowina ord< >r of thi Court was passed by This is claimants' appea! for enhancement of ths compensation awarded by the Third Additiona! Motor Accident C!aims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 27.01.2005, passea' in Clairn Case No.85/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.73,25,000/-, ciaimed by the appsiisnts/claimants, unfortunate widow, children and mother of deceased Chhadulal Kanwar by filing a ciaim petltion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehic'es Act, for his death in the motor accident on .05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as 25.05 Lri?"^?^t^rf^^'j"(nn Tn 'i'ho .nl'3Ey'"!'af'^¥s: si^^^ lA^ifh infis;;»'ia<s'!' ^^i ?^(-l^-, ^csT' •3tF^C~!3r ;w; Uju^S?i tO£5LiiUU iU ?.) s'S ^iCiH Uffii Sl^ saiUi i^ VVii.a i H iLSi KS^ 3^^. U 70 p%s fflUUUIi from the, date of the fiiing of the claim petition till the dats of actua! oavment. 3? . The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Chhedulal Kanwar died on account of Ihe injyries sustained by him- in the motor accldent on 25.05,2002; the acddent occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver r SB"0'*^: :asia: ^ ^'^v'^-i:: "\- TJiaB-d ofthe offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.MP-57 D/0257; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date bfthe accident was insured with the United India InsuranceCompanyLimited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the Insuranee Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the incomeof the^deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3''d of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By mu!tiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the deathof deceased Chhedulal Kanwar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of inferest on ,the above - amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- 6% per annum from the date of flting of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) . Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submltted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his 9 m .X '!°€ income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month only; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.1 ,87,000/- bnly. 7) Shri HB Agrawal, leaned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensatlon of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compengation in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. 8) Ms Anju Ahuja, tearned counset for rqspondent No.1, the owner ofthe offending vehicle Jeepalso supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ghheduial Kanwar used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month from agricultureand collection of forest poduce, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any faultJnthe approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of thedeceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunai at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Chhedulal Kanwar was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the -•H.1 compensation taking theineome of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12} By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/-towards the personal expenses of the deceased,the claimants'dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 13) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunalconsidering the age ofthe deceased, in our opinion, is appropriate. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000;r-towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sym of Rs.2,55,000/-as compensation for the death ofdeceased Chhedulal Kanwar in the motoraceident. 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for whlch the claimants are entitled to receive intereston the enhanced amountof compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified In this appeai itself. . 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, ^nd.the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amountof interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. , 6 padma 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount ofinterest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/-. 18) Respondent No.2 the United Ihdia Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositjng the total sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.68,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/-) before the concerningClaimsTribunal. , 19) Noorder as to costs. -lrf-^^: Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge