D.B.: ’ ’ Appellants Claimants Sm Pyari Bai Shrivaas, aged about 50 years, W/o Late Thanuram Shrivaas 2 Jamuna Prasad Shrivaas, aged about 28 a years, S/o Late Thanuram Shrivaas Bhishan Kumar Shrivaas, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Thanuram Shrivaas A11 Resident of — Kualpur, Police Station- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents Bharat Kumar, aged about 33 years, Non—Claimants ii S/o Mahendra Kumar' Mahanand, R/o- Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) District Magistrate, Through State of Chhattisgarh, Through Offlce of District Magistrate, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) Appearance: .Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the ‘appellants/ claimants. None for respondent 1. Mr. -Jamee1 Akhtar Lohani, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Honble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha 85 Honble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. M.A. No. 1343 of 2005 t. sh 2 M.A. N0. 1343 0f2005 f/I’J gang (12.01.2011) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of the deceased have flled this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 93/04 by the 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) viiie award dated 23.7.2005. (2) The appeuants/claimants filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakh for the death of deceased— Thanurarn Shrivaas in the motor accident which took place on 18.9.2003. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was Working as a barber in a hair cut saloon and was earning Rs.100/- per day. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 55 years. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led before it, held that the claimants could not establish that the deceased was earning Rs.100/ - per day. The Tribunal, therefore resorted to the provisions of the Schedule prepared u/ s l63—A of the Motor Vehicles Act and held the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/— per annum on the basis of notional income. 'The Tribunal deducted l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and dependency of the claimants was worked out to Rs.10,000/- per antium. By using multiplier of 8 to the said annual dependency of Rs.l0,000/—, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000[j. By adding further 3 M.A. No. 1343 of2005 sum of Rs.9,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.89,500/- as compensation to- the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased- Thanuram Shrivaas in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. (3) Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, argued that the income was not properly assessed and a proper multiplier was not used, therefore, the Tribunal awarded a low compensation to the appellants. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhatar Lonhani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent No 2 supported the award and argued that appellants 2 85 3 were major sons of the, deceased; the deduction would have gone to one—half; the income was also properly assessed; therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day by working as barber in a hair cut saloon. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of the claimants in this a regard. Since the deceased was a barber, he was a skilled labour. Therefore, we are of the View that the deceased must be earning Rs.100/: per day by working as a barber in a saloon in the year AN 1‘343'af2oo'57" ’W/ 2003 and the Tribunal ought to have held the income of the deceasedras Rs.100/— per day. The deceased was working in a saloon. Normaily the saloons are Closed for one day in a week, therefore, we assess that the deceased was getting work for 24—25 days in a month and he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/ - per annum. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation on the basis of the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum. (7) Out of 3 claimants, claimant No.2 was aged about 28 years and claimant No.3 was aged about 26 years. They are sons of the deceased. They must be having their own earnings. Therefore, we find that the Tribunal fell into error by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. We deem it. appropriate to deduct 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased by holding that only appellant/claimant No.1 was the dependant of the deceased. By deducting 50% from the income of Rs.30,000/—, the dependency comes to Rs.15,000/— per annum. The deceased was aged about 55 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 8. i We also deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 8. By applying multiplier of 8 to the said annual dependency of __ Rs.15,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.l,20,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs. 10,000/ — under other permissible heads, the total compensation works out to Rs.l,30,000/—. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.89,500/—. By deductirig Rs.89,500/— from Z Rs.l,30,000/-, the difference comes to Rs.40,500/— which M n m4 of 2005 appellant No. 1 would be entitled to receive as the enhance amount of compsation for the death of deceased— Thanuram Shrivaas in the motor accident. (8) To avoid rther complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimant’s appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, w deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, ‘Which we quantify as Rs.3,500/— in this matter. (9) Therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.44,000/— more (Rs.40,500/- as the enhanced amount oft compensation d Rs.3,500/— as the amount of quantified interest ' on the enhanced amount), vvhich she shall receive from respondent o.2. N (10) Respondent No.2 is granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount with the concerned Claims Tribunal, failing which, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date commencing after completion of period of 3 months till its realization. (11) The appeal 1s allowed to the extent 1nd1cated above There vatti 5 M.A. No. 1343 en fu e an shall be no orders as to the cost ‘t' * [ - ;::T .....ii..i. Sdl- l ix ' 3d/_ V _ Sunil Kumar Sinha f g g RN Chandrakar ‘ ’ Judge F3 L Judge