-—:,-:wmmm @ Present : I Shri Gautam Khetrapa% and Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the'appellants. Shri Vipin Singh, counsel for respondent No.1 . Shri Sudhir‘Agrawal and Shri P Outta, counse! for respondent No.3. ORDER . (06m January, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Raieev Gupta, c.J. This is ctaimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Acoldenty Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 03.05.2065, passed in Claim Case No.50/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.50,00,000l—, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Bakir Hussein Sakir, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death tn the motor accident on 19.11.2003 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation along with interest Q 6% per annum from the date of tiling 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 deceased Bakir Hussein Sakir died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident 19.1 1 .2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-16 20/0232; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance company Limitad and the Insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liabte to pay compensation to the claimants 4) As the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribuml have now attained finality. 5) The Trihunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.30.000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000l- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000l— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,75,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of Bakir Hussain Saktr in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,75,000l— @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, teamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing the claimants’ dependency at Rs.30,000/— per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of — Rs.4,75,000/— only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri PtDutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the Tribunal sa;ss @ has awarded substantial amount of Rs.4,75,000l- as compensation to the claimants. ‘8) Shri Vipin Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Anil Construction Company, the owner of the offending vehicle Truck also supported the award. 9) r True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bakir Hussain Sakir used to earn Rs.1,72,000l- per annum from his poultry business, the evidence led in that behalf did not establish the income of the deceased to that extent. 10) From Para 17 of the impugned award, we gather that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased as shown in the income-tax returns for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 held that the 'income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.60,000-70,000/- per annum. The Tribunal while deducting 1l3'“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, has also deducted some amount towards the expenses on the family and also business expenses. 11) As the income of the deceased shown in his income-tax returns was his net profit from the business after deducting all the business expenses, the Tribunal was not at all justified in deducting further amount towards business expenses again. Similarly, deduction towards the expenses on the family is not at all permissible. t2) We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/. per annum. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.40,000I- per annum, by deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.80,000/~ towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 13) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that muitiplier of 13 would lbe appropriate in the present case. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,0001- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.5,20,000l-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.5,35,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Bakir Hussain Sakir in the motor accident. ' 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a 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 v amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeai itself. 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter inoiuding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed ' for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,DOO/- at Rs.5,000l—. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,35,000/— with further quantified amount of interest . nt of compensation of R s.5.000/- on the enhanced amou ofR Rs.60,000I-. ntal Insurance Company Limited is 18) Respondent No.3 the Orie g the total sum of amount of quantified amount of interest .65,000I-) before granted three months’ time for depositin / Rs.65,000l- (Rs.60,000I- compensation + Rs.5,000/-. on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. /,M c/ \ Sd/- Chief Justice ‘ f towards enhanced towards Sdl- l Sunil Kumar Sinha y Judge l /,-_,_W,wv_,r. ‘1‘l‘/ i l l i; 1i l / / padma -\. i7 WA i‘ r l \¥