”E CQURT OF GHHA'E'?E$G¢§RRri K? EELAgpbR QWIS WE EENQH agimév? H€3§¥9%LE $HRE RIZMEEV GUPTA, CJ. 8: HGMBLE $HR§ SEjNiL KEJMAR SWHA, u? Mégg. Agfaeeg Na. MQ (if zwg @mvgékmm ’? Panchkmti Bai, Wfe Aiakhram‘ aged maimsnfs about 43 years, Kuwar Lal, 3/0 Aiakhram, agad abcui 2G years bath RIO Belargondi Thana Gendamlé, ‘Tah‘ Chhuriy’a,’ Distt‘ Ragnandgaor: (CG) a:“£‘E&“§&J Rgag'2Qmwerg'éig ”i Smt. Chitra Dedke W/o Nari—daimamg: Chandrakant Dodke, agedFaboui 40 years, House No.45, $hakarwara Chawk, Nagpur, Tahsaii and Disii. Maharashtrgi Na’danal insumnce Company Limited ihrough Divi Manager Akashganga vowpkan, Qupek§ Bhi!ai, Disii Dwg ex ‘ n gm} umeg $m359n ?3 a)? t§ae Mam? Va’nicEw Acg 19% Preseni : Sim nand ShukEcH Vounse! far me appeiéanis. Nana fa. resmndent N01 Sim UNS Dea; oounsei for respondent No.2. QRQEa {@S‘h gamma 2mm The fwmwing arder 9f ihe Com was passed by ‘f‘i IniS is ciaimants’ appeai for enhancement of the cempensmion awarded by Firai Additional Motor Accidants C!aims Trbuna!, Rajnandgaon (far short ‘ihe Tribunal’) Vida award dated 2?: D“ 2002, passed In Claim Caae VO 32/2006 ‘ /~ t)‘. 2} A8 againgt the campeasation of Rs.7,GQ,QDD/— ciaimed by ihe ameéE-cargtgfciaimams, unformnate widow anci $on of deceased Aiakhram; by fiiing a CQaim petition under Seciion 166 0f i’ne Maier Vehic!es AG? far hiS death in {he meter acciden‘t on 28.?2‘2G08, ihe Tribung! awamfed a iotai sam of Ra.’1,3§,3DO/w a3 sombemation warm; wiih imierwi @ 9% par annum from the date 0f fiiing of the ciaim pemion m me dam of actua! payment 3) Shri Amnd Shukka, learned coun$e§ for the appeéiants oobmiited that the Ta’ibuna! hag erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence abom the income of the deoeaeed and in aseeaeihg me income at Rs.1,20C/— per monih omy; and in awarding 20w compensation of Rai ,39,30(3/— oniy. 4} Shri UM“: Deo, ieameo counsel for respondent No.2 The Naiional meoranoe Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,39,3GD/— awarded by the Trtbuna! ts just and proper compensation in the tacte and oiroumetancee of the oreeent oaee. 5} Ae the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award! the findings recorded by the Tribunaé that deoeaeed Aiairhram died on account of the injuriee sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.1 2.98; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Commander Jeep; as the offending vehicie Commander Jeep on the date of the eocident was insured with the Nationai insurance Comnany Limited the insurance Company wee iiabie to nay comoeneation to D the oieii‘nante, have now attained fineiity. That apart, these finding am not under chaéienga before u$ in thiS appwi. We, therefore, am’m the findings; recarded by the Tribunai‘ 6} True, ihe claimants pleaded that deceaeed Aiakhram used t0 earn Rs.1,8GG/- per monih as meow, the Tribunai asseesed the mceme of the éeceaeed a? Rs.1 ,QDGJ— per month 7) Considering that deceased Aiakheam was aged abcm 46 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinian ihai the cieeeased couid have easiiy earned R350J— per day by werking e5 an Lmekmed labeur. We, therefcre, propose to reoompute the cameenearion raking ‘ihe income 0f the deceased at Re.5Q/— per day; R31 ,EGOI- per menth and Re.1 8,QOOX— per annum. 8) By deduciing the usual ”:f3’d of Re.’i8,000/- towards the pereenm expenses ef ihe eeceased, the cieimante’ dependency is aeeeeeed at Rel 2,00% per annum. 9} The muliipiier of 1.3 eelecred by the Tribunal, considering that deeeaeed Aiakhrem was 46 yeare of age and hie widow Pahehberibai wee shown i0 be 43 years or“ age, cannot be found feuit with 19) By muiiipiyihg the annual dependency of Rei 2,000l- with the rhui’tiptier 0t 13, the compeheatioh works out to R31 ,56,000!u. By ewerctihg further sum of Re.14,5GOI—, awarded by the Tribunal towards tunerai expenses; ioes of coneortium to the widow; toes of estate; and medicat expenses, the olatmants become entitled to receive a total eum of Rat ,?O,5QO!- as compensation for the death of deoeeeed Aiatthram ih the motor accident. H) Laamea’ counsel for the pames' submitted i'hat with a View to avsid any pogsibie dispute between ihe pamw about iha perind far which ihe cigaimanis are armed to {eceive imeresf cm the enhansed amount of campenssatian, the amount of inieres‘t on the enhanceé ameunt of compensation may be quanth‘ied in thie appea! iteeir’. ”i2) Caneidermg aH the reievan‘t factors including {he deiay in diepvsa§ 9f the deim petition and the present appeai and ihe faci inat inenrance Company aione ie noi to be biameci for the entire deiay in the maiier, we quaniiiy i‘ne amount oi interest on the enhenoeci amount 0f compensatien of R331 ,200/- at Rs.3,8€)G/-. i3) Foi the fotegoing reasons, the appeai fiied by the appeiiants/ ciaimante to? enhancement of the compensation ie aiieweci in part. Ti e eompeneation of Re.i,39,3OB/- awarded by the Ttibunai ie enhanced to R31 ,?G,5GO/— with futther quantified amount at interest of Re.3,&00;’- on the enhanced amount of oompeneation of ReEi ,2DGI'». 14} Responoen’t No2 The Natiohai insurance Company Limited i3 granted three montha’ time for depositing the totai eum of Re.3§,OOQ/" (Re.31,200/- towards enhanoetzt amount of oompensation + Re.3,800/~ towards quantified amount of tnte eet on the enhanced amount of compensation of Re.3’i =200/-) ‘oefore the oonoerning Ciaime Tribunai. t5) No order ae to ooete. Sd/— _ i Sunil Kumar Smha / L Judge ' ( i scv- ' fie subbu ‘ Chlef Justice