,.^ I12i1^ :i^':l ~i !i''',,. !ii> ) ',1,F1' '*^. !i'" ,f .,••' .." -«-?'" *: ^ s.y^f^' '•:^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Corani : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kunaar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS / Misc. Appeal (0 No. 374 of 2004 1. Smt. Ramshila Bai, W/o Rati Lal Yadav, aged about 40 years 2. Ku.~ Rykhmani Yadav, D/o Shri Rati Lal Yadav, aged about 15 years, 3. Nand Lal Yadav, S/o Shri Rati Lal Yadav, aged about 12 years 4. Narendra Kumar, S/o Shri Rati Lal Yadav, aged about 8 years 5. Kumari Mamta Yadav, D/o Shri Rati Lal Yadav, aged about 5 years, 6. Smt. Kamlabati Yadav, W/o Shri Rama Yadav, aged about 65 years 7. Rama Yadav, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Yadav, aged about 70 years Applicants No. 2 to 5 represented hereby legal Guardian Mother, Appellant No.l, All resident are village of Dhaneli, Post- Gird Thana- Dharsiwa, Distt-Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Bullar Singh, S/o Shri Bachan Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o Hillang, Thana 6s Distt. Singrol, Punjab. Present Address: Bombay Nasik, Transport, 48 Jekra Street, Thana- Jekra, Calcutta, West Bengal 2. Harjinder Singh, S/o Shri Jagdev Singh, R/o 16, Praganna, . Natakarian Kolkata-39, G.A. 59, "Garva Fast Lane, Calcutta, Wes- Bengal 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Dunlop Bridge Branch, 510910, 140/DBT Road, Calcutta, West Bangal r ^.sy • ' i''-!^^''" M.ArONo.374of2004 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDBNT ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. S. C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, 'counsel for respondent No.S/Insurance Company. None for respondents No. 1 8s 2. •i;;?';'. ,>.,-B VSS: ORAL- ORDER (04.12.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, This is the claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claira Case No.5/2003 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) yide award dated 29al September, 2003. (2) The claimants, unfortunate widow, ininor children and parents of deceased - Ratirara Yadav filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming conipensation of Rs.12,35,000/- on account of death of deceased Ratiram Yadav in the raotor accident on 4.12.2002. (3) The deceased was aged about 45 years. The claimants pleaded that, the dece^sed was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led in that behalf held that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted l/3rd towards •personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.12,000/- and thereby the >;ann,ual dependency was worked out to Rs.24,000/-. By applying la» M.Arc)No.374of2004 multiplier of 10 to the said annual dependency, the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.20,000/- under other heads and the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.2,60,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. (4) Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants arguesthat the multiplier used by the Tribunal was not proper. His submission is that looking to the age of the deceased and his wife as also that there were 4 minor children aged about 15 years, 12 years, 8 years and 5 years and that the parents were aged about 65 years and 70 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15 in this case. (5) On. the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 oppose 'these arguments and support the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. iiSi'-l^'^" (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. Admittedly, deceased Ratiram Yadav was aged about 45 years on the date of accident. His widow namely Rarushila Bai has been / shown to be aged about 40 years and there were 4 minor children aged about 15 years, 12 years, 8 years 85 5 years. It also appears from the contents of the Claim Petition that the parents of the deceased were aged about 65 years and 70 years. ' Y- (8) • .;-Iri the 'above facts and circumstances of the case, in our ,<f cpnsidered opining, the Tribunal erred in law in applying multiplier of '-"-• y^ ,ffi.g:)^ M.Arc)No.374of2004 10 and it ought to have applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 10 in this case. By applying muldplier of 14 to the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.3,36,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other permissible heads, the total araount of compensation comes to Rs.3,51,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. By deducting Rs.2,60,000/- from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,51,000/- , the deference comes to Rs.91,000/-. (9) To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claira Petition as also the claimant's appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.9,000/- in this matter. (10) Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- more (Rs.91000/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.9,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which they shall receive from the Insurance Company. (11) Respondent No.S/The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount before th.e /concerned Claims Tribunal, failing which this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum for the period commencing after completion of 3 months till its realization. •y5 \v- M.A(QNo.374of2004 (12) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to the cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhasswar Judge "a .-een ^'gv-