s? ULGH COURTOF CHHATTITOARH AT BltASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.CJ. HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA, J. Appellants Ctaimants 'j?1 Respondents Non-ctaimants MA(C) N6.769 of 2007 1 Smt Bhawna Dhruv, aged about 30 W/o Late Sukalu Dhruv 2 Hemant Kumar Dhruv, aged about 11 yeais, S/o Late SukaluDhruv 3 Ku. Yogeshwari Dhruv.aged about 05 y'ears, D/o Late Sukalu Dhruv 4 Ku. Yamini Dhruv, aged about 02 years, D/o Late Sukaiu Dhruv (Appellants No,2, 3 & 4 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appeltant No.1 Smt Bhawna Dhruv) 5 Mangtu Ram Dhruv S/o Late Ghutru Dhruv,aged about 55 years All r/o Vlllage - Deopuri, Tehsil & District - Raipur (CG) Versus 1 Raju Chandrakar, aged about22 years, S/o KK Chandrakar, R/o Changora Bhata, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur 2 ^Amod Singh Parmar, aged about 42 years, S/o Bharatnarayani Singh Parmar, R/o344, MIQ-2, Sector - 2, . Pt Dindayal Upadhaya Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, \ Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District - \Raipur (CG) /.r Aopeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel forthe appellants. None forrespondent No.1. Shri Sunil Sahu,counsel Tor respondent No.2. Shri HP Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER !th (15m September, 2009) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeat for en^ancement of the compensation awarded by the 14h Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ralpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.11.2006 passed in Claim Case No.23/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,75,000/- claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and father of deceasedSukalu Dhruv by filing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 26.09.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,22,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. * 3) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal haserred in assessing the incomeof the deceased on the basisof 24 days in a month only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal B- lil 3 expenses; in setectlng lower multiptier of 16; and in awardlng low compensation of Rs.3,22,200/- only. 4) Shrl HP Agrawal, iearned counset for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,22,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances of the present case. 5) Shri Sunii Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Amod Singh Parmar, owner of the offendlng vehielealso supported the award. 6) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Sukalu Dhruv died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.09.2005; the accident occurreddue to rashand negligent driving of the driver of theoffending vehicle Tata Mini Truck; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Mini Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finatity. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findlngs recorded by the Tribunat. , - 7) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sukalu Dhruv used to earn Rs.160/-per day as Mason, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not flnd any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidenceabout the income ofthe deceased. BT-'— 1 % •y 8) Nevertheless, the Tribunal certainly has fallen into error In assessingthe income ofthedeceased on theassumption that he would be getting work only for 24 days in a month. In our optnion, the income ofthe deceasedoughtto have been assessed bythe Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- perannum. 9) Considering that the three children of the deceased were aged about two years, five years and eleven years, we deem it proper to deduct 1/3r of Rs.36,000/- towards the persona! expenses of the deceased. Theclaimants' dependency, therefore, i is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. ] 10) Considering that deceasedSukalu Dhruv was aged about 33 years on the date of theaccident, the multiptier of 16selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the recent dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 was prescribed forthe age group between 31 - 35 years. 11) By multiplying the annual dependeney of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, thecompensation works outto Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss ofconsortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of Sukatu Dhruv in the motoraccident. 12) Learned eounsel for the parties submitted that witha view to ^^^gMStKSSs^MsSj^^^S^^wi.:^. .'V avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants areentitted to receive interest on the enhaneed amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount 6f compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 13) The accident in thepresent casewherein deceased Sukalu Dhruv lost his life took place in the year 2005; the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribungl in the year 2006; the impugned award came to be passed by the Tribunal in the year 2006; the ctalmants filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2007; and theappeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petltion 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 quantity the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/- at Rs.13,200/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the ctaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,22,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest oTRs.13,200/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/-. 15) Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.76,800/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,200/- towards quantified amount of 'mterest '£. " "si. 1 \^ 'n ^ /.• '•y' ^ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/-) before the concerning Claims Trlbunal. 16) No order as tocosts. -?v Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge padma