DIVISiON BENCH >mt. Sahodra Bai Patel w/o late Nehru Lal aged about 20 years, occupation - house wife. Jitesh Kumar S/Q late Nehru Lal Patel aged about 9 years, represented by mother Sahodra Bai appeliant no.1 . Smt. Kuwarmati Patei,. w/o Shri shagirathi aged about i 45 yeare, occu.oation - House v/ife. ' Shagirathi Patel S/o Sri Makhansai Patel aged about 47 years Aii residence are near Pankaj Udyan Khokhi para, Purani basti, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) on-aDpijcant .^.^; Sachittar Singh S/o Sri Jagir Singh aged about 28 years, occupation - Truck Driver, R/o. M.S. Ser/ice Station, Chhokranala, Thana - Telibandha, iaipur (C.G.) Pragat Singh S/o Sri Dalbir Singh, aged about 42 .years, occupation - Truck Owner R/o. M.S. Servlce. Station, Chhokranala, Thana - Telibandha, Raipur(C.G.5 The united India Insurance Co. umited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur 'r Secl Present: Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appelisnts. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anan.d Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ^ 3 %iSS6!k 8 I g 9- The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additiona! Motor Accident CSaims Tribuna!, Raipur (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide award dated 19.07.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.98/2002. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, msnor son and parents of deceased Nehru Lai claimed compensation of Rs.35,60,000,'- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for his death in the motor accident on 06.03.2002 when his Hero Honda Motorcycie was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing reglstration No.WB-73-3626 resutting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The ciaimants further 'leaded that deceased Nehru La! was aged about 27 years and used to sarn Rs.2,256/- per month as teacher. 3, The owner and driver of the offending vehicle truck did not contest the c!aim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The insurer of the truck contested the ctaim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the ciaimants on the p!ea that the driver of the truck was not hoidina a valid driving license and the fruck was being piied in breach of the polscy conditions. 5. The ciaimants examined AW1 - Sahodra Bai, AW2 - D L Patel, AW3 - Bihari Chouhan and AW4 - BS Sidar, in support of 5 •^i?",:.:.<i{--?"^ ^-s '%^sy kdii their clairn, whereas the insurer of the ofrending vehicie - truck not examine any witness in rebutta!. 6. The Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the evldence led before it held that deceased Nehru Lai died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent on 06.03.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; and as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident, was insured with the United India insurancs Company Limited, the Insurance Company was I'able compensation to the claimants. 7. The Tribuna' assessed the incoms of the deceased at Rs.2,256/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.2,256/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,504/- per month and Rs.18,048/- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.18,048/- with the multipiier of 12, the compensatlon was worked out to Rs.2,16,576/-. By swarding a further surn of Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses, and Rs.2,000/- for loss of consortium to the wldovif, the Tribunal awarded. a tota! sum of Rs.2,20.576/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nehru Lal in t'ne motor accident on 06.03.2002, The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.2,20,576/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till the date of actua! payment. Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting lower multiplier itaintMdit-iiifitt^: ;'tv..l^ •^ s ^ •y of 12; in not awarding any sum towards !oss of estate and in awardincj low sum of Rs.2000/- each towards funeral expenses ind ioss of consortium to the widow; and in awardtng low compsnsation of Rs.2,20,576/- oniy. 9. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal; learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,20,576/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper CQmpensation in the facts and circumstances 6f th present case. 10. The findings recorded by the Tribuna! that deceased Nehru Lal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.03.2002; the driver of the offending vehicle truck was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offendinj vehicie truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are not under challenge bsfore us in this appeal. That part, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to estabiish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribuna!. 11. So far as the assessmsnt of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,256/- is concerned, fhe ctaimants cannot have any grievance as the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.P/7) adduced in evidence by the claimants before the Tribunat itself establishes the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.2,256/- permonth only. We, therefore, do not find lll,.,.; ^c.caBa^ ,fft^ 'St, //""\..... 1 (^p any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,256/- per month. 12. The claimants' dependency atso has been rightiy assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personai expenses. 13. The multiplier of 12.selected by the Tribuna! is certainly on the iower side. Deceased Nehru Lal was aged about 27 years on was shown to be 20 years of age in the Ciaim Retition and thelr minor son was aged about nine months only. Considering the age of the deceased; his widow and their minor son, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case. 14. By multiplying the annual the muitiplier of 17, the compensation The claimants are further entitled to of Rs.18,048/-vtfith works out to Rs.3,06,816/-. recejve Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards ioss of tium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estste. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a totalsum of Rs.3,21,816/-. 15. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with s view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may bs quantified in this 16. Considering alS the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the ciaim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company aione is not be to blamed for ths delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,01,24-3/- at ;s.23,760/-. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filsd by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part.. The compensation of Rs.2,20,576/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,21,816/'- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.23,760/-. 18. Respondent No.3 - The United India insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for deposlting the sum of Rs.1,25,000/'- (Rs.1,01,240/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.23,760/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before t'ni concernina Claims Tribunal. 1 ordsr as t as to costs. sd/- Chief Jiistice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ^scima