fi HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH:HON'BLESHRIR.L.JHANWAR.J. Mise. AppealNo. 343/2003 APPELLANTS ::'i. ] iilli, 1. Khemin Bai wdA) Late Sukalu Ram Pandeyagedabout22yeaFS 2. Kumari Urmila D/o Late Sukalu Ram Pandey aged about 2 years, Through its Guardian (mother) Smt. Khemin Bai Wd/Q Late Sukalu Ram Pandey 3 Man Singh s/o Pakia Kumhar aged about50years 4 Smt. Radha Bai w/o IVIan Singh F'andey.Aged about48years, All are Caste Kumhar R/o viltage Bakma, Thana, Bagbahara Tehsil & DistriCtMahasamund VERSUS 1 Gangadhar Bahi^ar s/o Subtrash eiianclra iBafljdar; ^ed^aboyt 32 yeare, R/o village^T'Swalirpafi, Thana ,1-iginga, DistrictBalarigir(Orissa^ 2 Basudev Pati s/o Rameshwar Pati R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Balangir Tehsil & District Balangjr (Qrissa) 3 The Qriental Insurahce Co. Limited, Balangir, District Balangir ^lrissa) through Division Office, The Oriental InsuranGe Limited, Jail Road Raipur M!SC.APPEALUNDERSEC'riO 1730FTHEIMOTORSeMieLES RESPONDENTS ACT Appear^nce:,- ': . !;--» , : •-: •.'.,.:.1. ::;, :1 Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsel fpr the.appell Nons for riespondents N6.1 and.2. ; ShriAt»hisheKSinlia,counselforrestipndent .„!»«" : .,- '.• : : '"- •:. : : .:.':^' .1"' ' ^ ^^1 ^"-A jeiueyo 9MI ffl!M iRSJnsui SE lueRiooe jo sysp av^ yp sng sioiysA fiuipye^sy} SB :sng^|3!U9A&ipusj^siftpBu^ o) snp paijjnasxy tuepigpB eiii^i.ooz'ZI.'SZ u° lyepiooe .IPIOU.I eifl ui UJILI Aq pauiBtSns ^ijnlureiB^o lunQoae uo pa!piu&in]»tnspaseaosp sijl te4i P|SL| i! sJO(9q ps| sauspiASeitlloAuiinjo&ssoig.B Uo leunquj.eiij. •s •|ennq9JU!ss8Utj Aye3ujtuex84oup!p sng sidiqSA^uipueyp eiiuo.iejnsui ®itt"sesje4 'uiiBiSjieiil ^o voddns ui (Z-/VW) tueJfMn>l pue (|.-/vw) ieg uiuuei|» psuiuuexe siueuureia 041 •^ •• if wnst —••••-r-T--\• l[ r]!]• •supiiipuoa Aoiiod sq} ptioesiquipsiidBuisqseAAsnqeqi.puesousoiiBuiAuppiieABBuipioqiou SEM sng st|]^^o jsAup aift teifl eejd si.l} uo siueu.iieio siti 04 uoilesusduioo Ae3. oi AI!I!C)B!| sii paiusp pua liliep eq^ psisatuoo snq epiysA Buipusyo 81(^0 jainsujslij. •|eynqyi si|^ sjo^c|!sijed xe papasoojd SGM pue tuie]0 9i|l isatUoaiQU pip 8|3!4SA euipyeyo 9t|}jo jeAUp pue Jsiuno et)i •£ •jejnoqei sq} se Aep jed -/09l,"sa SutU.ieo sewl uiejn|e>|ns pssesasp eqi leifl pspeeid siueuuieio 841 •luauiiBej} }b esjnoo SLji Suynp ssynfui ssoqiOi peqiunoons oqm 'seunru! e|dji|nLU snouss 6tui Businsej 'jeAup S|! Aqsnq sqi ^o BuiAup lusSjiSeu pue qsej p }unoo;}B M° a3BICI >|OQi}uSp!03e sqi 'iuiq petjsep 6860/V £0 y0 'ON sng U34M l.OOZ'ZI.'SS uo 1USR!3:)B •ioi9tu S4t u! PeSBe39p sqt 10 k|ieep8tttjcy-/ooo'00'£^sypup!iBsua!dui036i.ijiU!e|o'pBSe|0!48^joiO!ft| SL|I 10 991. uoitoes Jspun uoiusd luieio e p3]y iuejn|B)|ns — peseaosp et|i y> s[Usjed pue .isii|Bnep JOUILU 'MopjWi Sieunvopn 'SIUBLUIBIO 941 •Z •ZOOZ/St'-oN SSBQ uuieio ui passed 'zoOZ'l.i'OZ psiep pjeMB spiA (.leunquj. eL|i,lJOLjs JQ() (90) RUhtiiBseiiew 'ieuhqui SUIIEIO S}u8p!oov joion ^i, sqtAq pspjeMB uoiiesusduioo sqi ya tUStusouBi|U9 .10^ lesdcie ,SIUBLU!B|O S! siqj. p '.iBMueqr-ry (oi.oz:0i$o) SaaSo -TZ, ^iSSISSSISt::. 1 '^Na»- ';Y? -t-I' ~^^'^,- "-'•:^?s^ ae .^s^i^ -s^\ Tl-" ^ ^ Insurance CQmpany Limitect, resppndent No.3, the Irisurance Company was liabletopaycompensationtotheclaimants. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income ofthe deeeased as Rs:25/- per day and Rs.750/- per month and after deducting iRs.150/- towards personal expenses, tha claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.7200/-perannum.BymultiplyingifteannualdependencyofRs;7200/- with the multiplier; of AS. ffie compensation was worked out to Rs.1^29,K)0/-. By further awarding Rs.2CX)0/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.SOCX)/- under pther head, the Tribunal awardetf total sum of Rs.136,600/- as CQmpensatioh lo tlie^claimants for the death of deceased Sukaluram in the motcM' accidehto directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,36,600/- @ 9 % per annum from the date offiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. V: 7. Learned caunsel for the appellants argued that the Tnbynal has awarded a low compensation. The1'nbunal has not 1aken tHe notional ineome or the income given by tt'ie'State Government t6 the labourers. If it would have taken then eertainly, the compehsationwoyld have gone dn the highersideand see'ingthis beneflcial act, notional income should be taken if the income is not properiy giyen by the witnesses. He argued that in this case, notional income of th& deceased may be considered as Rs.30,000/-andafterdeducting 173rd towards personal expenses, multiplierof18maybeappliedand1}ieisf0re,thec6mpehsationshouldbe enhanced to that extent. He reliecl !ein the judgments of this Court in the matter of Shiv Kumarandothers^v.^Wtaleshi'amahdOtlfei's, 2006, L.T. (CG) 96, Smfc Sagar fi^ A TOaB(^-& Offiere tfe. JanaAte/ Pandey & Pttiers, 2009 (3)C^L.J.^i(DE^andSmt.Meera 0ew & <%fte»SVs. SukhbindwSingh & Others, 2009 ^}C.G.I.J. 128 (O^. 8. Onth6 Company supporfed awarded by other hand, learned counsel for respohcl^hf the award ^rid cdntehded thatl Tribunal is jusf anS ^roper Goni|3ensati( -'-=*(»-.' .: '•'.•'•..'. .'••'.:'''.. •': ".'•'.'•;..•"•.-. '•''•;:'"•.."'.;'-: ^•: :\." .: ;.'•;:• . circumstance? oft tlie present casie; The;;T'nBynai the i<.^:-liilE;3h!c£ai £S3:5^5&T<-hBiI ^iS-l-S—I.na No.S/lrisurance tMe?compensation iiSrliin the facts and ittas as^essgd the ^;^^g^ 9-^ •lii. '.'^ income of thedeceaSedonthebasisofevidenceadduGedbefore it and therefore, it cannot be Said that the Tribunal has awarded a low compensation. 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that-~the deeeased Sukaluram died on account of the injunessusteined by him in the motor accident on 28.12.2001; the driver of the offending bus was responsible for the accident; and the insurer ofthe bus was liableto paycompensation to theclaimants, have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidenee available on reeprd for establishing the above factS beyond any shadow ofdoubt. I, tlierefore, affirm the findings recorded.by the Tribunal in thatbehalf. 10. The compensation to be awarded by the CourteH'ribuiials in a motor ctaim ease should be just and proper compensatibn. It shoutd neither bea meageramQuntnor aboinanza. 11. After relying on thosejydgmentS;it iswellsettled that the Jribunal or this Court rieed not be bound by the pleading law, particularty, while computing just and reaSonabtecOmpensation as contemplated under the Act. This fact has come t6 think loudly that in eomputing the loss of dependency, the Court cannottake inte account exploited,wages which an employer might have paid to the deceased-employee or wage-earner. The accident took placepn 28.12.2001. Amanhavinga family consistingof mpther, wife.young children having ai shelter over his head with two square meals and some provisions for rest of the life eould not have lived without earning Rs.2000/- per.montK. Eyen the evidence givert t5y the clairrrants is not ofelinGWng nature. Therefbre, 1 thinkthatit isfaif'totake monthly ihcome crf the deMased as Rs.2000/- and Rs.24,000/- per annum. Out;of this after dedudmg 173'd towafds Rereonai expenses of the deceased annuaF dependency of the claimants is vrorked out to •Rs.16000/-. The deceased was ^ed about 28 years on the date of accident and his demjse, Therefore, appropriatg.multiplier of 17shou1d be applied, as per Smfc Saria Venna and offiws'yereus DeWri T/ansocwt i^.iU ^ CorooraSon and Another 2009 m D.M.P. 161 /S.C.) Thus. the total loss of dependencywould beRs.2,72,000/-(Rs.16,000 x 17) and by awary'ing Rs.7000/- under other heads, total compensation would be Rs.2,79,000/-. In this case, the Tnbunal . has already awarded Rs.1,36,600/-. Thustheclaimants are entitled to receive-Rs.1,42,400/- more as totalamount of compensation on account of death of Sukaturam in themotoraccident. 12. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute betn/een the parties about the period fpr which the claimants are entitled to receive interest orr the enhanced amount of compensation, the interestonthe enhanced amount of coiDpensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 13. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal ofthe claim petition and the presentappeal andthe factthatthe Insurance Companyalone is notto be blamed forthe delay in the matter, Iquantify the amount of interest on tHe enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,42,400/-at Rs.760(V-. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation is allpwed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,36,600/- awarded by the Tribynal is enhanced to Rs.1,42,400/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7600/- onthe enhanced amountofcomipensationofRs,1,42,4QO/-. 15. Respondent No.3- Oriental Insuranee Company Lin'iited is granted three months time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,42,400?-.?towardsenhahcedamount6fcompensation+Rs.76pO/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhaijie^cl amounf of compensation oifRs.1 ^42,400/-)'befbre the concerning ClaimsTribuhal. T6. Noorderastoeosts Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge —-M / vvf^^WWm^f,wg