HIGH^ili^i^^^HH^i^ D.B.! .^ Al]ia»eUaints €!laiinsints ^ ResiKMideats :1:^ 31Honmifr|iI^^a^Ki"*iarslttha& i;H^tt*iife|Ml.?R.N.^^iiaBtdiatEar.;'J«y.. MA.Nb. 713 of 2004 1^^^ S^ Umesfo <^andra^^^^ M about32years 2 Aush K^ar l^ Ghalndm' ^isKra^^^ ;:years;.:,':^^../^l:..rY-<^1^ AppeUaritINa.2 Mmor Through;Natural^^^(^ PushpaNishra, ; Both I^o. VUt. Nu^ ^a^, ^ 'DJ^ Pres^nt IR/C). Pura^ BUalpur, WtnctBUaspur^^^^(^^^^ ^^erstt$l.-r':7 1 Bhai-at Lal,° S/o.!Baburam;|i>£ .^ J^ Navkesha, P.S. Saja, ]I)isN<^fu1^ J)Viver 2 Pi^ Singht^ar,agedabput^^^^ R/o. tO^, Jawaliar Na^ DistrictDurg(C.Cr.) Owner 3 The Natton^ I^d. DNsional^^^^^^^^^ 1^^ lasiirer 4^ ^ Pa^ament^Member, I?/o. ^ Ganjpara, Durg(G.©.) ^al?uraniiSWi, •;*.^.^-. (AppealunderSectiohl736ftheMbforVe Auoeatance: Mr. Rakesti Nonefor Mr.G.V.Kl §aMi,Advp<2atefortheappeil|a^ es^oridents 1, 2^&4. 1 Rao, AdvocateifQrrespk)ndent^^N res •A b-^ M.A.No. 713 of2004 ORDBR (27.01.2011) FoUowing order of the Cpurt was passed by Siiiiil Kuiliar Sinha, J. (1)The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancemerit ofcompehsatioti awarde^ by the ThirdAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur vide awarded dated 28.4.2004. (2) The appellants/clmmants, urifo widow and minor child of deceased- Uniesh Chandra Mishra, flled a Claim Petition •u/s 166 of the Mjotor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of^^R^ 43,00,000/- for his death in the aceident which took plaCe on 28.8.2001. They pleaded thaf the deceased was working as Assistant Train Dnver. The deceased^^^^w^ was getting salar^ of Rs. 16,000/- per month. (3) The Tribunal, on a close scriitiny of^^^ faeld that the deceased was eamin-g Rs.5,000/- permonth.By deducting l/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellants 'was worked out to Rs.3,334/- per month and Rs.40,008/- (rounded up as Rs.40,000/-) per annum. By applying multiplier of 16 to the said annual dependency of Rs.40,OOO/ -, the compensation was worked 6ut to Rs.6,40,OQO/-. Since an amount of Rs.3,73,800/- was already deposited by the Employer with the Coinmissidner Workmen?s Conipensation urijder the Workmen's Compertsation Act, therefbre, ^ -Sl;c ^' ;--\ ^ M.A.No. 713 of2004 the Tribunal deducted this a.mount |Erom Rs.6,40,000/-and the cpmpensation payable to itiieappellants under Motor Vehicles Act was worked out to Rs.2,6€>,20Q/-. Apar^ Tribunal also awarded Rs. 14,500/- under other heads and the total amount of compensation payable to the appellgjats was worked out to Rs.2,81,OQO/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total aum of Rs.2,81,000y- as^^^^^^^ death ofdeceased- Umesh ChandraM 28.8.2001. On this amount, the Tribunal also awarded mterest at the rate of 9% per anmim from tfae date of filirig of the Claim Petition till the date ofactual payment. (4) Mr. Rakesh Sahu, learned coun^el appearmg on behalf of the appellanfs/cdmmants, argues that the ihcome of the deceased was not properly assesseci by the Tribunal.i He prays for proper assessmenf of the iricome^ a^ ambunt of compensation awarded by the Claiffls Tribunial. (5) On the other hand, Mr. G.V.K. Rao, leariied counsel appearing on beihalf of the Insurance Company/respprident No.3, opposes tUese argumerits and supports the award passed by the Claims Tribunali (6) We have t ard the learned counsel fortheparties at length and have also perused the records ofthe claim case. ^ -€ 10 ^v•-& -M.A.-:No.^l5^6^2004:-l:'.::-.l;'^.^l~^ W The Tribunal has assessed tfae iricome JQf the deGeased ori thelsa^is of salary certificate fHed^^^^^^ cojiatents of ^e above^^^^^^^^^s^ ^deceased was Rs.3,Q42/- per month. The deceased was also getting D.A. pf Rs. 1,701/- per mpritii 85 he was getting H.R.A. of Rs.40Q/-, N.D. aUowance ofRs.Sp/-, O.S. aUowance^^o^^^^^ K.M. (Kilometer) aUowance of Rs.1,038/- month) and few other alknwances^^^^^^^m Rs.75. The Tribunal after eonsidenng ttte contents of the salary certificate held that in light of the said certificate, the meome &f the deceased could be held as Rs.5,OQO/- per month. In view of the cohtents of the salaiy certificate proved as! Ex.-P/7-<^ ajad the permissible ainLWVn^^^^^^^w^ for cQinpiitatioii of mcome of^e deceased for the piirpo^ of^^^M do nptfind ai^f]aukm the^^^^^ has held that thie income of the d<eceased Rs.5,000/- per month. cart be t^ as (8) So far as deduction is cc>ncei^ed, the^ T^ usual deduction of t/3M w^ ^^-:..,-.-: .•/;,^..^. ;^';'^ laid down by the Supreme Court in Sl^d Bd&yieer -dhamecf dnd Others -Vs- Mohammed Jidmeel dnd Anbther, /2009) 2 SCC 225, in which, it was held that the general rule regarding deduction froin th^ bachelorand one-thirdifhe is^named. M.A.No.%13of2004 vafti ,/. -^- ^L.'-:''1'^1'^.'.^' (91) So far as nHiIfipli^ Itas recorded the ilnding that the de^ased^^w^ abbut 38 years and has ,; applied multiplier of 16. The aboye^^^^^m Trit)unal Gannot be Keld to be a lower multipUer m \dew^^^^^^^ the judgment of the Supreme Court iii iSdrla Verfnxt {Smt.^ dnd ffthers vs. Delhi ThEms»drfCoiT^ra^fl'ri cu^ anbther. (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. in which. the niultiplier of 15 was held to be appropriate forthe age group of36 to 40 years. (10) For the foregoing reasons, we do not fihd any scdpe for enhancement of compensation to the appellants fbr tlie death of deceased- Umesh Chandra Mishra in the said accident 6h 28.8.2001. '•':•' " . . '' • ••-•.. ..•'"~:":'". "•. • - '; ' • ' •-'••• '' . : ' '. ..•''. . ' ' '• ' ' •..l' (11) T^e appeal jfiled^^^^^^t^ is Uafclefo be disittissedsuidisfaetisbydismissed. (12) 'niere shallbeno ordersas to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge / Sd/- 'R.N. Chandrakar Judge \.- f 5 :; ^ l-.-J