yaw-g mum Q'e: cagmTiwAm‘a AT EuLgxwgR gagwmmq BENCH {QQKQw : n— r§GN§ELE SHw RA ‘ WW”! E sH GE}??§ iiJ P $A§F CPA igQ o? £m§é E‘JEkS£. A§¥§E$§l Na $£K3§3§§mnis~ 3‘ bmt Bhagwati aueci abow 3f: vearS ww 03 l c umaaayee casie — Aheci, omqnat on - AgncuiaunSi. R mmvas med abeut 17 wears son of a e Sui Ii’ajee pd abeut 15 years daughter of Vayff: Lama; aged amut 13 years; daughter ef iate Sehrayee. Umapati‘ agad about 11 daughtar cf Late Saharayee. Medan aged about 1D year$, son <3? mm Xn4- euh. ,v ayce, I» $i‘ No. 2 w 5 are minom through their maxi mend: Mather Smt. Ehagwatii widow of I ?#e gnhravee, aged abaut 36 ,rcmf‘ ”‘3m Anea’ RS. P.O. Distt.- Surguia U a .L § L F ti a a O years; {agelem of Dakdhawa, TahsE a Paal, AH are Baérampur, Bakampur, §C%'ihat’£isgarh). Versus uautam $ingh aged about 3’3 vear$ sen of i‘macmm Gucupauun Drivel, {e91dnnt 9f t$“10aauva1:and Samadlh PO. Bawa’maur, ian Pad} PS ‘ Fiewumimm 1' . \~...\i3a!rampur, Dist?” Sui’guja (CG). 2. Awtm gom aaed about 50 vear$ «on 9f I e Gangaran‘ 80m, occuVation - Ru3me¢§ and VFhzc e ownw residant 0; Bahanwur, Disii Surguja {Shha’ttisgarm‘ ‘ J F I 1 8. United india in$urance Cpmpany g Umiteé, granch Office: Owe Ram Mandir; é‘ambikapur, $3.0. and Tah. - D§sii Surguga ' ‘ §Chhati§$gam). ’ iizmmmaadum of mmaag andser $ac§§on W3 a? the Mom! ‘l :A! -‘ ,—m Preseni : f3hri $.$nf§grawas; cuuhsel for the appellants Nana hr respsndem N91 though served. S'ri F Singh; counse far regponent No.2 Sm Mmishék Sinha a 3hr} Ghanahyam Pata, caunsel fog” respanent No.3. us {3am $emmaey, 2mg; The foawing order of the Court was pa$sed by ii gajaev Gapa, ‘J. i C Th is i$ ciaimants‘ appeal for enhancement of the Qtampen$ai§0n arded by th Fourth Additionai Motar Aident aim$ Tranai, mbikapur (far short he Tribuna!’} Vida award aiec ‘‘I 1 .2003? pa..ed in Ciaim Case Nam/2003 Gl JQ 2 As, against the cempensarinn of R$.8;82;(}{)G/— maimed by ihe appelianrs/ daimanta Lmfarmnate widow and minor $h§§dren ‘ N decea$eci Sshrayee by fiimg a ciaim petmon under Section 166 ‘ Q?‘ ring. MBiQr \réi‘dmes Am“: for his death in thg motor accident on. ‘ £36G32€303i ihe Tribunai awarderj a tatar sum of RS1 ,35,GOG/— a$ a compensarion aiong with interest @ 9% par annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of aotuei payment. 3, The Trtbunat on a oioee scrutiny of the entire evidence iect g . before ét heid that deoeeeed $ohreyee died on eocouot of tirie wgmuié§ éwg. 1§33 h “ i d m d gagER e 3w e cc r 3% ib A t injuries sug-‘atained by him in the momr accident on OB.O§.2003; the accident accur‘red due to rash and negligent driving of the dnver 0f the offending vehicie Truck bearing {eg%stration Nc.G.G.- 15236329; as the above gffending vehicle Trunk on the date of the accident wa$ insured with the United India in$urance Campany Limited 8nd the insurance company couid not e$tabiish Va any bieach 0f the neiicy cnndiiions, the insurance Campany was iia‘eie t0 pay compensation te the ciaimante. 4. Ae the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the awara, the above findings recorded by ine Tribune! have new afrained iinaiiiyi 5, The Tribunai aesessed the income of t'ne deceased at Reii IOQQJ- per month and Re.12;()DO/- per annum. By deducting if? of Rs.12,QOQ/- towards- ihe pereenai expenses of the deceaeed; the oiaimante’ dependency was assessed at Reatiatil- per annum. By muitipiying the annual dependency of ‘Re‘EiyOimf- with the muitiplier of 16; the confpensatien was werked out to Re.i:28;fJOQ/-. By awarding further sum ef RszOOOf- iowaroie funerai expeneee and Rsi5,QGO/- towards ioes of ceneortium to the widow, the Tribune! awarded a tetai eum of R’s? ‘:35.GOO/- es compeneation to the oieimants for the death of ‘deceaeed Sehrayee in the metor eccident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of comeeneatton of Ref; i35;000!— @ 9% per annum from the date of tiiing ct the claim petition till the date of actual payment. *vvx l i R @ §A $hri S3. Agrawai, ieamed counaaei far the appguants gubmiited that ihe ‘Tribunai has ermd in n03: accepting the c§aimant:3’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in as5e3$§ng his incame at Rs.1,GOOI— pa manth and. Rs.12,0GQ/— per annum oniy; in seiecting the Iowa? multipiier cf 16; in mat awarding any $um towards inss of estate; and in awarding §ow V ‘ cnmpematicn of R31 ,35,GOQI- Qnni‘ 7'_ g$hri AbniShek Sinna and $hri Ghanshyam Patel, learned nounna§ for rewbndent N03) the United Endia lnsurance Company Limitgd, on ting Omar hand, suppnned the award and contenc‘ied, that: the comnensaiéon of R51 ,3500‘731- awarded by the Tnbuna! it: just and prayer compeneaiion in the facts and circumstances a? the ease 3. $hri Re? Singh, reamed counsel for respondent No.2 Aoitya Soni, the owner of {he offending vehicie Truck aiso eupponed the award. 9. rn a motor accident claim case what is important is that the comoeneation to be awarded by ine CoortsfTribunai should be goat and oroner compeneaiion in the facts and ciroums’i‘anoee of iine case it ehoold neii'ner be a meager amount of compenaaiion inor a bonanza ‘10“ Now? we shall examine as to whether the compeneation of ‘Re.i;3$,{)QQ/- awardeo by the Tribunai is just and prooer 1compeneaiion in ine iacis and circumetancesof the present caee. l a W 11‘. True, ihe claimants pieaded that deseasad $ohfay$e used to 9am QgzmOI- per month as HamaUKha'iasiicQoiiaih the Tmak. the evidence gen: in ihat behah’ wa$ mt of ciinching naium. in fact. the wiver of the Tmck examined a$ NAWQ Goutam Singh caiegeyicaliy siated that ha himsai’r’ was getting saiary of RSV? ,5GQI— Ger momth omy. in this state of evidence, éh$ Tnbunai in Vgur epininn, has ngh§3y niescarcied the ciaimants’ $v%dence ahwt the incoma of ine deneaged. “i2. ‘Tne Tribunai whiée d$$carc3ing {he ciaimants’ @vidence about {ma inmma Qf tha deceased ought to have a33e$sed his; income on inn na3§s 0f the nonnna! incame pressribed in the $emnd Schecium uncjer Sentinn 163-A of ihe Motor Vehicleia Act We, inarefnre. pmpcwe tn {acornnute the compenm’tinn taking ine incomg of thaé deneased at Rs‘15,0f)f)f- per annum on the bassis 0t the notional income pregoribed in the $eonnd Schedut e undo: Section 363A of the Motor \fenioteo Act. t3; .3cmsieenng that there were ee many ee eeven pereone \ E o‘onendont on tha income of the deoeasedJnciuding the deogagect, we are of the opinion that deduction of Rs.3,000/— per annum tewarde the nereonat expeneee of the deceased woutd be gust and proper. By Geduoting Rs.3,QQG/’- oer annum the etatmante’ dependency ieeeeeeeed at Rat 2,DOQ/- per annum. 14 (Eonstdering the age of the deceased. hie widow and their ehitdt‘ee, we are (3t the optnien that mtilttptier at 15 setected by the i d !g Tribunat isa apgmprmte in i’ne facts and cimum$tanca$ of” the i pmwni caSe. ‘ By musfépwing iha annuaQ dependency of RsiZOQGI— with the muiipéier 0f 16; e mmpensgiion works Out ta §§sfi ,92,00Ql-. The claimanfs are r’uriher entitlaj to receive a sum RaSJmGI- tewards funerai expgngea RsS‘OGQI- far {03$ of consmmum to ‘ne wiaw; zand, Fig.5;QQGL for iess of £2$tafe The Qiaimantsi thus, becama enEed tr.) receive a mtg: sum (3f R$,2,07,000/— as mgemamn fm ihe deai‘h cf deceased $ohrayee in the motor ascidem 1A arne comma: for the parties submiftgd ihat wéth a View 6 Lea it.) acid any pos3ie dispute between the part§e$ abeut i‘ne am for wch siaimant$ am entitled to {eceive interest on a enhanced: amount Gf compematmn, the amaunt of interessi en ifne enhanced amount of cemeensation may be quantified in this a3pea itseéf. 1?. Coneie‘ering aii ihe reievam aepecie mciutiing ihe de£ay in disposez cf me Qieim peiiiion and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance Company atene is not to be interned fat the entire detay in the matten we quantify the amount et’ interest on the enhanced ameunt 0t cempeneetton 0t Re.'72;GQQ/— at Reggae/e 1'8 Fer the foregoing reeeons, the appea! filed by the epeeiiente/ otaimante for ennencement of the compeneation ie Stewed. in oar? The compensation of Rs.1,355$‘{)D/- awarded by E ix i5 i th ‘ ifit mt v bi Ga hi the ih g$ ihe Tyibma} is enhanced t0 R$,2,(§7,QC)0/— with further quantif§ed amount of in€e¥e§ af R$.8;OOD/- on the enhanced amoJnt of compensaticn 0f Rs.?25009/—. 1,9. Respendent N03 the United imjia insurance Comgaany Limited is granied three manihs‘ time far depoaéting ihe feta! sum <3? RBBQQQW- (Rs.?2;000f— towards enhanced ameunt cf camgemation + R$.8;(§0Q!— tcwamis quantified amount Qf intereSt an the enhanced amount of comggensatécn of Rs~72,Q€)D/—) befors ihe ae‘nceming CSaimss Trébunai. XE No Qmer as to G0$ts .4 “W 1 ‘ t , Sdl- Chief Justice k ’1