^^s^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRt RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 268 of 2003 Appellant Claimant Smt Budhiyaro W/o Chain Singh Kanwar, Aged about 27 years, Occupation - Home Sister, R/o Village Balsedi, PS / Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) Respondents Non-applicants c. VERSUS Morwa Transport Company, Bairhan - Distt Sidhi (MP), Through Partner Pro- Dipak Sahu, S/o Ramesh Chandra, aged about 35 years, Occupation - Business, R/o Bairhan, Distt Sidhi (MP) The Oriental Insurance Company, Limited. In front of Surya Bhawan 0\S Shopping Complex Vidhya Nagar, Bairhan DJstt Sidhi (MP) Shahjahan Khan, S/o Razzak Khan, aged about 40 years, occupation - Driver, R/o Bairhan, Distt Sidhi (MP) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of IVlotor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for respondents No.1 and 3. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel with Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.2. .^^^^ ^'"'^ "^ 11^—^, 1 t --^^y '^^^s^^ ^ ORDER (1st December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appellant Smt Budhiyaro is seeking enhancement of the compensatjon awarded by the 4h Additional Motor Accjdent Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.09.2002, passed in Claim Case No.28/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.27,08,500/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Chain Singh Kanwar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 11.05.1^9, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant's husband Chain Singh Kanwar died on account of the injuries sustained by hirn in the motor accident on 11.05.1999; the^accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MBA-4527; as the above offending vehtele Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insuranee Company Limited and the Insurance Companycould not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. -^^ V ^•>„.^•--'•'•:"-^-. ^^^l- •\. 1 4) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month. By deducting Rs.200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.1,0007- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- wlth the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,92,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,99,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Chain Singh Kanwar in the motor accident. The Tribunal, further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,200/- per month only; and Sn awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,99,000/- only. 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- ^s&' ^ L. awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 also supported the award. 9) True, the claimantspleaded that her husband Chain Singh Kanwar used to earn Rs.4,000 - 5,000/- per month from agriculture and working as Labour, the evidence led jn that behalf was not of clinching nature. We , therefore, do not find any inflrmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month on its own estimate. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only Rs.200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased and in assessing the claimant's dependency at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. 11) Considering that deceased Chain Singh Kanwar was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident, the multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fautt with in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Venna (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed forthe age group between 31-35 years. 12) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly erred in awarding only Rs.7,000/- under other heads. 13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- jnclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make ^'cr-:' /y% \ (qTlj '%,-.^^/' ^•^..^•—•^:"^^' Q-^ ^. ^, padma the compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) The appeal filedby the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.1,99,0007- awarded by the Tribunal. 15) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. ,- Sd/- Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -^*