y^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BDLASPUR M.A. (Q No. 505/2009 APPBLLANTS CLMMAWrS RESPONDBNTS NON-CLAOaANTS 1. Vishwanath Badhai, S/o Jogesh, aged about 45 years 2. Satyajeet Badhai, S/o Vishwanath Badhai, aged about 18 years 3. Minor Sameer Badhai, S/o Vishwanafh Badhai, oged about 15 years Appellant No. 3, minor through legal guardian fafher Vishwanafh Badhai AU R/o Sharda Nagar, P.V. -3, Pakhanjur, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker (CG) Versus 1. Dipankar Kuadu, S/o C.N. Kundu, aged about 37 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o village Pakhanjur, Tahsfl Pakhanjur, District Kanker (CG) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, near Jhankar TaBdes, Jaipur Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) SB:- Hon.Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRBSBNT :-Shri Aditya Khare, Adv. for the appeUant. Shri Soiirabh Sharma, Adv. for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (31-3-2010) Per N.K. Aaaa'wal, J 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 5-2-2008 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker in Claim Case No. 69/2007 whereby and whereunder an sonoimt of Rs. 1,65,000/- has been awarded in favour of fhe claimants as compensation for fhe deafh ofdeceased Mamta. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16-5-2006 at about 4.30 p.m. deceased Mamta along with other deceased persons was retuming after attending a marriage of her relation by a Tempo Trax Gamavehicle bearing registration no. CG/04/H ^^%^! ss ^^^ 3039 and died on a iK3^1ite bomb blast near village' Sakansur Distt. QarhchirauM. The husband and children of deceased Mamta filed a claim petition under Secticai l63(A) offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly *the Act^ clamung Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for tfae deafh of the deceased against the respondents. 3. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutmy of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company responsible for payment of compensation, a^^sssed income of fhe deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per anniMn, after deductmg l/3rd toiwards personal expenses of the deceased, assessed loss of dependaacy 10,000/- per annum, applied muttipUer of 15 looking to the age of the deceased as 43 years as per post mortem report, and awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of loss of dependency. Leamed Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards ftineral expenses and thus awarded Rs. 1,65,000/- as total compensation along with interest at fhe rate of 6% per annum from fhe date ofapplication till its rccoveiy. 4. Shri Aditya Khare, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted fhat the Trfbunal has erred in not acceptmg the claimants' evidence about fhe income ofthe deceased and in assessing her income at Rs. 15,000/- per anniun only; and in awardinglow compensationofRs. 1,65,000/- ordy. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company supported the award and contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and clrcumstances of the case, which deserves to be upheld. 6. True the claimants pleaded tt^t deceased Mamta used to eam Rs. 4,000/- per monfh from business of food articles and used to maintaui the claunants. However, the appellants failed to substantiate fhe aforesaid income pleaded In the case and therefore, in. the opiruon of fhis Court, leamed Tribunal has not erred in discarding fhe cla3mants? evidence about income offhe deceased. ^1^^, '% 7. Nevertheless, fhe income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,OQO/- is certainly on lower side and reqiiires reconsideraUon. Considering the deceased was aged about 43 years, I am of fhe opinion fhat she could have easily eamed Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/~ per annum from fhe said business. I therefore, propose to recompute fhe compensation taking the income of fhe deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per monfh and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. 8. By deducting the usual l/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimante^ dependency is assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per aimum. 9. As fhe deceased was aged about 43 years, appropriate multiplier would be 15 in view ofllnd Schedule appended to Section 173-A ofthe Act. 10. By multiptying annual dependency of 16,000/-wifh the multiplier of 15, fhe compensation works out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The claimants are ftu-fher entitied to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards fiineral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants are fhus entifled to receive a total sum ofRs. 2,50,000/- for the death ofthe deceased. 11. For fhe foregoing reasons, fhe appeal filed by the appeUants for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. Compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 12. Leamed counsel for the parties submitted fhat with a view to avoid any possible dispute betiveen fhe parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced aiaount of compensation, the ainount ofinterest an the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified ia fhis appeal itself. 13. Considerii^ aU the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of ttie claim petition and the prcsent appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for fhe entire delay in the matter, I quantify the ainount ofinterest on the enhanced amoiint of coinpeni^-tion ofRs. 85,000/- atRs. 5,000/-. ^_y/ ^, 1^-^!^ ^;^%.^^''" 14. For fhe foregoing reasons, fhe appeal filed by the appeUants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 5,000/- on the enhanced ainoiint ofcompensationofRs. 85,000/-. 15. The respondent no. 2/Insurance Company is granted three months' time for depositing fhe total sum of 90,000/- (Rs. 85,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 85,000/-) before the conceniing Claims Tribunal. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge |NN»(,