@ gapenants 1 . Ciaimants Smt. Munni Bai w/o late Mutukdhari Pakika, aged about 40 years occupation House wife. Ramkuman S/o sate Mutukdhari Panika, agad abaut 18 years. Rajkumari, dlo. iate Mutukdhari Panika, aged afaout 10 yeafs, minor through guardian mother (appeilant No.1) (Appenant No.1 to 3 are resident of village Charcha, Coiliery, (Maharana Pratap Colony} Police Station & Tahsil Baikunlhpur, district Koriya (ca) Phoolkunwar, d/o late Mutukdhari Panika, W/o Raghavram, aged abeut 32 years, caste Panika, occupation house Wife, Rio Sirii, P.S. & Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Respondents Non—appiicants VERSUS Shankar Ram Netam, alo Shri Fagun Ram Gond, aged about 35 years. eocupation teacher, , R/o. Village Charcha Colliery (Vivekanand Colony) ModiparalViiddle Se'neol.’ (Owner/Driver) United lna insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CC-i.) (insurer) HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BiViSiON BENCH (EGRAM: HON’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misci Appeal Ne. 930 of 2W4 'Appeai under $ection 1?3 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 19% A di @ Prasent : Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsei for the appeiiants Nane for respandent No. 1. A Shi'i H;B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, ceunsei for respondent No.2. ORDER (1am catcher, 2910) The fonowing order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gut C..,L pa, The appeHants are seeking enhancement of the compenation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikunthpur, district Korea (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide awar dated 24.06004, assed in Claim Case No. 1312003. ‘ 2) ’ The appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and children o dease Matukdhari Panika claimed compensation of Rs.36,70,00(3l- by iling a claim petition under Section H36 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11‘072002, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending ‘vehicie Motorcycle bearing registration Not 0.6.161‘2968, resulting n multipte serious iniuries to deceased MatuiEdhari Panika, who succumed to those injuries during the course of his treaent in the hospitai same dayf“‘“The claimants further pleaded tha deeased Matukdhari Panika was aged about 45 years and used to earn Rs.9,000/— per month ‘by working as Category ill Exptosive Carrier in Charcha East Colliery of ‘ / s a d 2 p f ecd f i b tm t c // J // @ 3) The owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycle contested the claim and denled 'thelr liability to p‘ay compensation to the claimants. The owner-cum-driver though admitted the fact of accident pleaded that as the Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured, the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, if any, would be of the insurer of the Motorcycle. The insurer of the Motorcycle, on the other hand, pleaded that the motorcyclist was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Matukdhari Panlka died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.07.2002; the accident occurred due to the negligence of both i.e. deceased cyclist and the motorcyclist of the offending vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-16/2968; the extent of iiability of both of them were 50% each; as the offending vehicle Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the United lndia insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants y- 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,308.58 per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.3,808.58 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.5,000!— per month and R‘sr60,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of s Rs.6D,DOO/— with the multipiier of 13, the compensation was worked out to RsA7,8O,DOOJ-. As the deceased himself was found to be negHgent to the extent of 50%, the ciaimants were held entit!ed t0 receive only 50% of Rs.?;80,DOQI— as compensation for e eath of deceased Matukd‘narl Panlka. By awarding further th d sum of Rs.9,5OD/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,99,500/— as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Matukdhari Panika in the motor accident. The Tibunai further directed payment of interest on the abOVe r amout of compensation of Rs.3,99,500/— @ 9% per annum from n the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. t6) , Shri Atanu Ghosh, teamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Matukdhari Panika also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in awarding low amount of Rs.91500/—ionly under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,99,500/— only. 7.) hri B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt S H Meera Jaiswal, learned counset for respondent No.2 the United lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation assessed and awarded by the ribunal is just and proper compensation in the T facts and circumsances of the present case. t 8) Th claiants cannot have any legitimate grievance about e m the assessment of the income of the deceased as the income of the deceased shown in the pay-slip produced before the Tribunal was to the extent cf Rs.8,3U8.58 oniy and the Tribunal has assessed the income 0f the deceased at Rs.8,308‘58. 9) The ciaimants’ dependency aiso has been rightly assessed +:. deceased tewards his persona! expenses 10) Considering the age of the deceased; his Widow and chitdren, multiplier of 13 eeiected by the Tribunal alsp cannot be found fault with. i1) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly faiien into error in awarding only Rs.9,5DO/- under other heads in the year 2002 (the .yeer. of accident). in our opinion, the claimants were entitled to receive Rs.5,000f— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,GQO!— for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000f— for loss of estate. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a further sum of Rsc5,500!- under the above heads. A further sum of Rs.500/— is awarded to the claimants towards interest on the above amount or Rs.5,5oor—r t2) So far as the finding of the contributory negligence is concerned, the same is founded on the evidence of AW2 Shobit 7 Kumar Vishwas examined by the claimants as eyewitness of the accident, who has categorically stated in para 5 of his cross— examination that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and the motorcyciist. ln this state of evidence, we do ‘ not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunai that by he Tribune! by deducting about 1/3” 0f the ineeme 9f the subbu the. deceased and the MotorcycHst both equally contributed to the accident. ‘13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.6,000!- inclusive of interest component, in addition to the sum of Rs.3,99vl500l- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.2 The United lndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.6,000l— before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. 3M 2 I .V . Chandra“? I , Judg¢ / ,. i 7J7? :j :RN. A 1/ sw— l Chief Justice l