3. The New India Insurance, Company Limited through Divisional Manager, ,, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, ‘ Madina Building, Ralpur, .district Raipur C.G. ‘ MISC APPEAL UNDER $EGTION 173 OF TH MOTO VEHICLEs A¢T. 1$88 Present: V Shn Dharmesh Shnvastava,counselfor the appellants None for respondents No 1 & 2 . .Shn Sourabh Sharma counsel for respondent No.3. - ORDER j (1" March. 2011) ff, The following order, of the Court ewes“ passed by Rajeev Gupta, call The unfortunate, widow and ohildren of deceased Manharan Lal-Dubey are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of=the compensation awarded by. the Motor Accident Claims TribunalyRaipur (for short 'the Tribunal‘) vide award dated 30.1 1 .2005. passed in Claim Case No.03/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.62,30,000l— claimedby the appellants] claimants, unfortunate widow and children of i deceased Manharanr Lal Dubey, by filing a claim petition under ' Section 166 of the Motor'Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.12.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,10,000l— as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per .annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. > i 3), The- Tribunal on a close scrutiny of-the entil’e evidence led r before it held that deceased Manharan La! «Dubey died on account of the Injunes sustarned by him In the motor accident on x ~ D2 122004 the accrdent occurred due to rash and negtrgent dnvrng of the driver of the offending vehicle Marshall bearing r registration No.M.P.48lD-0063; as the above‘offending Vehicle. Marshall on the date of the accident was insured with the New india Insurance Company Limited and the insurance-Company ‘r ‘ - could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the - insurances Company was liable-to pay compensation to the a I claimants. r '4) ‘ t As the respondents have not tiled any appeal agalnetvthe ~-award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunalhave-now attained finality; v 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs1 95000/— per annum By deducting SD96 of Rs 1 9500m- towards thespersonal expenses of the deceased, the cidmants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.97,500l-, which-was rounded off « to Rs1 00 ODOI- per annum By multiplying the annual dependency of Rsi OOOOOI- with the muitipirer of 8 the compensation was worked out to Rs.8,00,000/'—: By awarding further sum of» Rs.10,000/-. under-other heads, the ‘Tribunai‘ awarded a total sum of Rs8 100001‘ as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Manharan Lal Dubey in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of Interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.8,10,090!— Q 6% per annum from the date of Vfiling of the claim petition ti“ thedate of actual payment. 6) ‘ Shn Dharmesh Shnvastava learned counsel for‘ the appe}lants submitted that the Tnbunai has erred In deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in awarding low sum of Rs 1O OOOI- nly under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs 8 1O 000/. oniy. a 7) Shri Sourahh‘ Sharma leamed counsel for respondent >No3 the New India lnsuranoe Company Limited on tho other a hand submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting the, .inoome-tax paid by the deceased as per his income—tax returns I from his income, assessed for the purposes of the compensation p ’8') w Considering the income-tax returns of the deceased filed satisfied that the Tnbunal has rightly i before the Tnbunal,3we are assessed the Income of the deceased fiat 'Rs.t,95,000I- perv annum: However; for the purposes of assessment of the compensation, the income-tax which was pard by the deceased V7 on his income is required to/be deducted frst From the income- I the incometax of about Rs33 600l- ~-was paid by-the deceased on his annual income of Rs 1 95 0001:. ~We therefore, propose to the income of the deceam tax retums we gather that recompute the compensation taking at Rs 1 62 OOGI- per annum. - 9) I The deduction of 5W) of the income of the deceased V er towards his personal expenses in view of the fact that there were 1 I in all five claimants, of which one was widow of the deceased and three were unmarried daughters of the deceased, in our opinion, is notjustifred. The Tribunai, in fact, ought to have deducted 1I3" ’ of the income of the deceased towards his personal ewenses in“ view oi the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed . Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed'Jameel and i another repotted in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Gas a e225; t “:1 0) By deducting-the usual 113'“ of Rs.1,62.0001- towards the i. ‘personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants‘ dependency is assessed at Rs.1 ,08,000I- per annum. ’ e 11) .The multiplier of '8 seiected by the Tribunai considering the age of the deceased, in our opinion, is appropriates . 12) ~ >- By muitipiyingrthe annual dependency of Rs.‘l ,08,000I- with the multiplier of 8 the compensation works cut-to Rs.8,64,00Gi—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000l- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000f- for loss of estate; and Rs;5,000/— for loss'of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.8,79,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Manharan Lal Dubey in the motor accident. 13). Learned counsel for the parties submitted’thatwith a view - to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitledto receive interea on v ‘the enhanced amount of compensation. the amount of interest on “ the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this l appeal itse!f._ 1’4) Considering all the reievant aspects of the matter, vincluding the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeai and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire deley in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation ~ IotRs.69,000/- at Rs.6,ooo/—. I .15) For the foregoing, reasonsp the appeat filed -by the appellants[ claimants} for enhancementfof the compensation is. allowed in part. The compensation of- Rst8,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.§,79,O,OO/7 with'further quantified * amount of interest of-Rs.6,000l- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.69,000/-. 16)' Respondent No;3 the New indie Insurance Company‘ ‘ " Limited is granted three monthsttimerfordepositing the tom sum? of Rs.75,000/— ~(Rs.69,DOO/- towards enhanced‘viarnount of; compensation + Rs.6,000l- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.69,000l—) before g v the concerning Claims Tribunal. r 17) No order as to costs. i Sd/— i x Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice ‘ Judge subbu .