^^-^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVtSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRJ RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR8 RASSIGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Ciaimants Misc. Appeal iC} No. 32 of 2006 1 Pardeshi Ram, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Aghanu Ram 2 Pancho Bai, wife of Shri Pardeshi Ram, aged about 42 years Both are residents of viliage Bhaiujhulan, Tahsil Kurud, Distt Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS Respondents 1 Bheem Sahu, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Johatram Sahu, resident of viliage Sarsonpuri, Tah and Distt Dhamtari (CG) (Driver of vehicle No.CG 5-A-5586) 2 Shekh Akram, son of Shri Sheikh Shaqur, aged about 27 years, R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, Proprietor, Nationa! Engineering Ratnabandha Chowk, Dhamtari Distt Dhamtari (CG) (Owner of vehicie No.CG 5-A-5586) 3 The United India Insurance Co. Limited, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle No. CG 5-A-5586) MisceSSaneous Appeai under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri S.S.Agrawal, counseiforthe appellants. Shri Vikas Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.1. Non^ for respondent No.2 though served. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (21st February, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Rikhi Ram are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.69/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,40,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Rikhi Ram by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 26.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% 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 the claimants' son Rikhi Ram died on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.03.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration NO.C.G.05A/5586; as the above offending vehicle Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the daimants. '^. 4) As the respondents have not fited 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.15,000/- per annum, on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1 /3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rikhi Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 6) Shri S.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants Submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,70,000/- only. 7) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counset for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand submitted that the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the —^•'.//- Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counse! for respondent No.1, aiso supported the award. 9) True, the ciaimants pleaded that their son deceased Rikhi Ram used to earn Rs.100/- per day as labour, the'Tribunal has assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis ofthe notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10) Considering that deceased Rikhi Ram was aged about 19 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.100/- per day in the year 2005 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) As deceased Rikhi Ram was unmarried on the date of the accident, 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personai expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. We, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 12) As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the muitiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a totat sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Rikhi Ram in the motor accident. / 14) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.2,000/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.20,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest '••^ ^- .^ . ^. ^:'" rsubbu on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. -—-— Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge