@ HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR DEViSiON BENCH CQRAM: HON’ELE SHR§ RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. HON’BLE SHR§ SUNIL KUMAR SENHA, J. Anneiiams Aan-l‘.‘ u; A l‘ Hpplluai Ila Misc. iwpem N0, 689 of 2602' Niiu $/o late Shri Parmanand aged about 19 years. Respondents Non-appl§cants 1. Smt. Bhagwanti wio late Shri Parmaraand $0nakar aged about 45 years. 2. Pappu s/o late Shri Parmanand aged abaut 27 years. ()A Ali resident of Power House, Bhiiai district Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSU$ 1. Baiak Prasad s/o Kartik Ram Satnami aged 29 years resident of SH. Nandini Nagar Cio viiiage — Sirsa Bhata, dist. Durg C.G. 2. Smt. Awatar Kaur w/o resident of MIG-74; Vaiehali Nagar; Bhiiai CG. 3. The United India insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, G.E. Road, Tara vumprcx, {"Avu. lg.. DL‘: Dlulm a: l‘ vAJ. f‘ 4. Goverdhan Agrawal s/o late TR. Agrawat, R/o Seth Tuta Ram Agrawa! Compiex, Link Road, Bhilai, uratiiqt ,1... v.qé n LJUI'g \J.G. f‘ MISC, :AP?EAL UNDER SECTION 1??» OF THE MOTGR' VEHEGLES ACT, 198$ Present Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, teamed counsei for the appeiiants None for respondent No.1. I)x. @ Shri Basant Dewangan, learned counsei for fespondent No.2 Shri Dashra‘th Gupta, iearned counseisfor respondent No.3. Shri Vijay Deshmukh, ieamed counsel for respondent No.4. GREER (99th February, 2M1) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupia, C.J. This is Claimants’ appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additienai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 27.03.2OG2, passed in Claim Case No.14/1998. 2) 7 As against the compensaticn of Rs.24;187000l- ciaimed by the appeliants/ ciaimants, unfortunate mother and brothers 'of deceased Rajesh, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; for his death in the motor accident on 19.1 1 r1997, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of. Rsr1,QG,OOO/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heldvthat deceased Ratesh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.1 1 .1997; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration N0.M.P.R.921 1; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India insurance Company Limited and the r l @ lnsurance Company could not estabiish any breach 0f the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunailassessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500l- per month and Rs.18,000!— per annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.18,009i’— towards the personai expenses of the e deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 2,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12;000/— with the multipiier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000!— under othet heads; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1;00,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajesh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low sum towards funeral expenses and not awarding any sum towards loss of estate; and in awarding low compensation of Rst ,-O0,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, " Supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumatances of the present case. 8) Shri Basant Dewangan and Shri Vijay Deshmukh, Ieamect i oounsei for respondents No.2 and 4, also supported the award. : 9) Beceased Raiesh was aged about 23-24 years on the date ‘ of the accident. The oiaimants are his mother and brothers. The ‘unfortunate accident in which deceased Rajesh test his iife took place in the year 1997.- 10) On due consideration of the abovementioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and the claimants’ dependency and so aiso the multipiier selected is also appropriate in the case. M) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly failen into error in awarding low sum towards funeral expenses and not awarding any sum'towards ioss of estate. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further'award of Rs.10,000/- inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.’i ,O0,000I‘— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. .13} The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore; is altowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.1D,DOO/— inciustve of V\/ t ‘eirLy., 4 t a inierest component on the enhanced amount of compensaticn in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,O0,00G/— awarded by the Tnbonat. t4) Respondent No.3 the United india insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depoeiting the further sum of Rsr10,D00/— before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 15) W ’ No order as to costs. i i “so Sd/— , :: Sd/_, CHIEF JUSTICE Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge