c^\^ / 1N THE H1GH-C017R.TOFJ17D1CATUREATB1IASPUR..CCG.) MiscelIaneousAppealNo.-7^ \ /2004. BlvJSi'en APPLICANT5: ^CLAIMANTS R.ESPONDENTS ^<JON-APPLIO\NTS ^r <<5;A<:?' s?^' c@^ ^"'^•''^' A^ ^•6^ .^'\.' ^^ V4^~ ^T) Kep bai W/o R^m Sghgi Ygjav ggej gbouf 50 yegrs. 2) P-gghungndw S/o Sri Rgmsghai Ygd^v, Aged gbou-t- 18 yegrs. R/o Villgge & Post - Ahiw3i'9,Pistt- Purgi 1) 2) 3) 4.) / 5) <•" 6) ^" VERSl/S NeiR^m @ Netu S/o Sri Shgntar L.il Yg49v R./O Vilhge & Posi Pbgmjha, Tghsil- Phgmjhg, Pistt- Durg C.G. Sunil Kumgr S/o Sfi Mgjgn Igl Shgrm? R/o Villlgge - Hgtri Bgzgr Pbgmjbg Post - Phgmjhg, Tgbsil - Phgmjhg Dis-tt- Durg C.G.Occupation- Mgtgjor Qwnei-. Oriental Insurgnce Compgny Limi'te4 | Tbrough; Divisiongl Mgngger, Orien-fal Insuqnce Compgny Limite4, -'3il P-ogj, R^ipur, Pistt-Rgipur C.G. Shekb Bgppi S/o Sri junnu Sgo Musgl Mgn Tbrough: Bombgy Trgmspori: Comp3ny Ta'tib3n4h, R9ipur,T3bsil & Distt- RgipurlC.G. Moh4 A. Rghim S/o Sri Moh4 Chouse Througb: Bombgy Trgnsport Compgoy Tg'tibgnjh, Rgipur, Tgbsil <Sr Distt- Rgipur C.G. Occulpgtion - Tgilor Owner The New ln4i9 Insurgnce Compgny LimiW, Thcough: Brgnch Mgngger, The New ln4i3 Insuqnce Compgny Limi'tej, Kgchgbgri Chowk, Jail R.oa4,R9ipur Distt - Rgipuf C.G. Miscellaneous Appeal unjer section 173 OF Motor Vehicles Ad: 1988 ^^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS /r*-f RESPONDENTS NON-APPL1CANTS .A.No.344of2084 Keja Bai and another Versus Net Ram @ Netu and others. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.t !i! 1 "sy Present : Shri S.C. Verma, counset with Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the appeilants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Aj'ay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents No. 4 & 5. Shri S. Pandya, counsel for respondent No.6. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21 day of January, 2010) This is claimante' appeal seekir^ enhancement of compensation against the award dated 31-10-2003 passed by Vltlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Ratpur (for short the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.03/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimante and against the respondents No.1,2,4,S & 6 for the death of Sukhnandan Yadav (since deceased). 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: On 08-07-1998, collusion took place between the Matador No. WP-24-C/2082 and vehicte No. MP 23-DA/1826. The deceased who was sittfng in the Matador at the time of the aforesaid accident succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident 3. The appellants/claimants unfortunate mottier and brother of the deceased have preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act') claiming Rs.3^26,000/- as compensaUon for the death of the deceased. 4. Learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence led, materiat placed and submissions made by the parties, assessed the income of Ji. iiiNTdrM-'r I)::. the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum; looking to the age of the deceased between 20 - 25 years applied the multiplier <rf 17 deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of ttie deceased awarded a sum of Rs.1,70.000/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 2.000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,72.000/- along with interest @ 4% per annum against respondents No. 1,2,4,5 and 6, hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for ttie appellant would submit that ttie amount awarded by the learned Tribunat is shocldngly on lower side. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in fact, the compensation awarded is already on higher side inasmuch as the multiplier of 17 has been wrongly applied and, therefore, there is no scope of enhancement of compensation in the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned. 8. Leamed Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short 'the Act). !f increase in the prices of essenflal commodities and the cost of living between the years 1994-1998 Is taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,(XX)/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year1994would come to Rs.18,000/- in the year 1998. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Raj'mati & others vs. Anil Kumar & others; reported in 2008 (2) C.G.L.J. 323, therefore, tte tribunal has erred in assessing the income as Rs.15,000/-, it ought to have been Rs.18,000/- per annum. However, this witl not help the claimants as the multiplier applied is certainlyon higherside. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, has held that in a case preferred by the appetlants for the death of unmarried child, the multiplier should never exceed 10. If we compute the compensation by taking income ofthe deceased 18,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased; and by applying the multiplier of 10, the compensafion «au»*, T""""'" i t..p".,? -.-.."?^';'" Kvr wouid be Rs.1,20,000/-. By adding further amount of Rs.15,000/- on other heads, the total amount wouid come to Rs.1,35,000/- which is less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 10. !n view of the above,l do not find any ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appea! fiied by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. | c,j, [ i N.K. Agrawai Judge ; !;