HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM. HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & \ HON BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants 1. Smt Radha Bai, aged 28 years, § Claimants Wd/o Late Ganesh Baghel 2. Aman Baghel, aged 9 ears, S/o Late Ganesh Baghel 3. Ku Damini, aged 5 years, D/o Late Ganesh Baghel 4. Ku Sevantin, aged 2 years, D/o Late Ganesh Baghel Gajendra Baghel, S/o Late Ganesh Baghel No.2, 3, 4.and 5 minors through natural guardian mother No.1 Smt Radha Bai All R/o Aamapara, Sweeper Colony City,'Tahsil & Distt Raipur (CG) 7"( VERSUS 1. Gokul Baghel, aged 40 years, S/o Laxman Baghel, R/o Near Kalibadi Raipur(CG) Ramesh Kumar Sachdev, S/o Shri Narayan Sachdev, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Kalibadi Raipur C.G, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager Branch Office Krishna Complex Jail Road Ralpur City RalpurC G Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 2006 y MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEs'ACT. Preseht: Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. , Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (05m March, 2011) The foll0wing order of tHe Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal‘) vide award dated 18.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 25/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,25,000/- claimed by theappellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Ganesh Baghel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,07,200/- as compensation to the claimants alOng with interest @ 6% 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 held that deceased Ganesh Baghel died onaccount of the injuries sustained. by him in the motor accidentvon 11.03.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing' a / registration No.C.G.O4-T/1079; as the above offending vehicie Tata Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the4 United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance \ Company wae liable to pay compensation t'o the ciaimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/- per month and Rs.26,400/— per annum. By deducting‘ 1/3rd of Rs.26,400/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.17,600/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.17,600/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,99,200/-. By‘awarding further sum of Rs.8,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded atotal sum of Rs.3,07,200/— as compensation to the claimants for the death a of deceased Ganesh Baghel in the motor accident. The Tribunal ' further—directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,07,200/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/— per month only thoughthe deceased in fact was getting salary of Rs.4,735/- per month at‘ 2,2“ the time of his death;.in selecting the lower multip!ier of 17; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.3,07,200/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3, \ the United India insurance Company Limited, referring to para 11 of the award submitted that the Tribun‘al has erred in not ’ considering the fact that claimant No.1 Smt. Radha Bai, widow of deceased Ganesh Baghel was getting salary of Rs.4,295/- p’er month on account of her compassionate appointment by the employer of deceased Ganesh Baghel after his death ‘in the motor accident and in awarding excessive amount of Rs.3,07,200/— to the claimants. 8) lt is true that deceased Ganesh Baghel on the date of the accident was getting gross salary of Rs.4,73’5/- per month as Sweeper in Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur and the Tribunal has assessed the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,200/— per month only. AW2 Gameel Ahmed, a Clerk of Nagar'Palik Nigam, Raipur in his cross-examination categorically stated that claimant No.1 Radha Bai, widow of deceased Ganesh Baghel was given compassionate appointment by Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur, the employer of deceased Ganesh Baghel and Radha Bai was getting salary of Rs.4,295/— per month. 9) The Apex Court while considering the effect of - compassionate appointment of the claimant in the case‘of cg “Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors.” reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5256 observed in para 12 : m“ . “ But we find that the High CoUrt lost sight ofthe fact that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. It is i pointed out that respondent No.1 was getting Rs.4,700/— p.m. and a residence has been provided to her and actuaiiy the compassionate appointment was given immediateiy‘after the accident.” 10) If the fact of compassionate appointment of appellant No.1 Radha Bai, widow of deceased Ganesh Baghel and further fact that she was getting salary ofRs.4,295/— per month and the‘ deceased was getting salary of Rs.4‘735/— per month only are considered in the light of the above quoted observations of the Apex court in the case of Bhakra BeasManagement Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal & Ors. (supra), we are satisfiedthat the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.2,200/— per month for the purposes of assessment of the compensatiOn payable to the claimants is rather on the higher side as the! difference between the sum of Rs.4,73’5/- which deceased Ganesh Baghel was getting as salary and the sum of Rs.4,295/— which appellant Radha Bai is getting on account of her compassionate appointment comes to only Rs.440/- per month and Rs.5,280/- per annum. 11) The claimants’ dependency-also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the’ deceased towards his personal expenses. «- ;\‘ 12) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as deceased Ganesh Baghel admittedly was aged about 30-35 years on the date of the accident. 13) \For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.‘ 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for l enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be w“ t l l dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No orderasto costs. . Sd/— Sd/_ V ‘ . R.N. Chandrakar ChiefJustice ‘7 Judge’r nimmi y W