v Q Z.S'T-f^LXS' ^^•^^'STSS^T^ s~%Vt ^tTS'm^ ^P'^T^^^. ni^rs, ^^jut€i ui? ^ti^i^-i r. H. I'hlo Wf Sn 'lll, A?AA p .S^.a^,'? CIaiiaanfc M.A. Wo. 166 of Jagsai Mukanee, S/o Late Rastya Mukarjee, Aged about. 57 years, R/o Vulage 6s Post. Singhajipur, P.S. Basna, District Maliasam.iind (CO) Versits • Dariieshwai' Sahu, S/o ChhabUai Sahu, Aged 32 years, R/o Village Sakari, PS Abhanpur, Distt. Raipm' (CG) Jeevan Bus Sen/ice, Through Suijeet Sm.gl:!, S/o Hakam Singh, agecl 44 yeai-s, R./o Sukla Coiony, Raipur (CG) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltxl- DMsional Office No. 1, Kachahari Chowk, Raipm' (CG) IMiscellaiieo'us Aiipeal tinder Sectlon 173 of Motor Vefaicles Actt 2 Appearaacc! Mr. Raghvenclra Pradhan, Advocate for the appellant/ Shailendra Sharma. Advocate for respondent No.S/Insurance Company. Following order of the Coiirt. was passed by Sunil Sinha. J. (1) The appellant/clainiant has filed this appeal for enhaiicement' of compensation awarded in Claiixi Case No. 131/03 by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tcibunal, Mahasamund {G.G.'i vide award dated 18t11 August; 2004. ya% ~'% (2| The appellant - unfortunate husband of deceased Sant.kunwar - filed a claini petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of .Rs.7,25,000/- for her death m the niotor accident on 2.10.2003. The ai pleaded that the deceased was eaming Rs.50-60/- per day and she was 55 years of age at the time of accident. (31 The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence lecl before it, held that the deceased was eaming Rs.35-36/- pei' day by worktng as a labour. Her income was assessed at. Rs.800/- per montli and Rs.9,600/- per anrn_mi. By deducting l/3Id towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the appellant was worked out to Rs.6,400/- per aimum. By applyuig the miiltiplier of 8 to Uie annuaS dependency of Rs.6,400/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.51,200/-. By awarding a further sum ofRs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, a total amount of conipensation was worked to Rs.53,200/-, which the Tribunal awarded to the appellant. as compensation for the death of the deceased in the niotor accident. on 2.10.2003. The Tribmial also awpjded interest. SE 9% per ann^mi from the date of filing of the claim uetition till the date of act.ual paynient. .Since the ofiendiiig vehicle was tnsured with respondent No-3 aad respondent No.3 coiAid not establish any •breach of policy condition, fherefore, ftie Tribunal directed that the respondents should be jointly and sevei-ely liabte to pay the compensation to the appellant. !rl.R- .l.^£ ^^ i£il& 1^1 L£^•d &' .'^iF'.^te'* 01 AtJUO ,0 (4j Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appeUant/clatmant, argued that the uicome was not properiy assessed aiid a low compensation has been awarded to the a.ppellant. (S; On the other hand, Mr. Shaitendra Sharma, lean'ied counsel appeaj'ing on behalf of respondent No.3, opposed these arguiiients and submitted that the income 'of the deceased was properly assessed; fhe deduction is l/3rd, whereas, it would have gone to % because fhere were onlv two members in fhe fm'nilv of the deceased. (6| We have heard the leamed counsel for the paities at lengdi and have also perused the records of the claim case. (7} The appellant. pleaded th.at the deceased was eaming Rs.50-60/- by working as a labour and by doing other works. The appellant examined hmiselfas AV^-1. He deposed in para-3 of his exaralnation-in-chief that the deceased was eamtng Rs.50-60/- per day. His evidence regarding income of the deceased has not been rebutted in the cross-examination. The Tribuna]., on the evidence of AW-2, held tb.at the laboiu' rate in the viUage 'was Rs.35-36/- per day, ftierefore, the deceased must be getting Rs.35-36/- per day only. On appreGiation of the enth'e evidence available on record, we do not find such 'Gnding of the Tribujial to be con"ect. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the LUTrebutted evideuce of Jagsai (AW-1) that the deceased was eai-mng Rs. 50-60/- per ?i,e l^i day by doiiig labour work aiid also by seliing vegetables etc. Therefore; we propose to re-compute the compensation holcijiig the tncome of the deceased as Rs.1,500/ pa' month snd Rs. 18,000/- per aj.'m.uni.' (8| Since there were two members in the familv of tlie deceased, we deeni it appropriate to deduct 50% of tfae above aiiiount towards personal expenses of the deceased. By deducting 50% of Rs. 18,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, fhe dependency of ttie appellant works out to Rs.9,000/- per aniium. The deceased was aged about 55-60 years, The 'Tribunal has applied miiltiplier of 8. Lookm.g to the age of the deceased and the appellant, we also apply multiplier of 8 in this matter. B;' applying muitiplier of 8 to the annual dependency of Rs.9,000/-, the conipensation work.s out to Rs.72,000/-. By addtng further sum ofRs. 10,000/- under other permissible heacfe, the total aiiiomit of conipensation works out to Rs.82,000/-. Smce the Tribunal has ah'eady aweu'ded Rs.53,200/-, therefore, by deducting Rs.53,200/- from Rs.82,000/-, the diSerence comes to Rs.28,800/-, which the appellant is entitled to receive as the enhanced amount ot' compens accideRt^ for ttie deafh of fhe deceaseci in the motor To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the claiia petitioii as also t.he claimant. s appeal aad that tlie InsLu'ance Conipariy alone carmot be ^" ^? ^ £t ^•^^l,.!'&.. r^ ^T^^ '^-H S^ ^ ^fS. a&ST^'^^-S blanied for such delay, we deem. it appropriate to quantify fhe interest, which we quantiiy as Rs.2,200/- in tlTis matter. (10| Therefore, the appeUant is entitled t.o receive a sum of Rs.31,000/- more (Rs.28,800/- as the enliaiiced aiiiount of conipensation and Rs.2,200/- as the aDiount of quaiitified interest on the eruianced aiTiount), which he shall receive from respondent. No.3. (11) Respondent No.3 is granted 3 nionths t.im.e to depusit. the said am.ount. »vithtfae concemed Claims TTibiinal, failing wbich, this aiiioT-mt shall cany mterest at the rate of 6% per minimi from the date commencing after completion of period of 3 months till its realization. l2| The appeal is allowed to the extent. uidicated above. There shall be no orders as to the cost Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Ransnath Chandrakar1 . Jisdge »@^---. ^