'li': |||||^|^j|[^^[^|^^^a^^^|^|^ig|B|||||n|I|j<i|K ^'©^'©la^iSIKtigSMtiS^Kil'^^ •Si®EWa|@ig^Ili88f®^l» K^ '•^1.^3ICTBg3^£8|3n8jgiEie;g|g|S,Si^||@S^^^ :S8^a;.IKSK@S--:ylKSssS%^S^.aSiS®%K?Sw?®^ •;:. .. '..;; .'' 1: :.'' ^.'-' . ^:;||najEl§|j^|Bg,isfc[Blj^g|g;^¥,^ ^:]^:?K:'>^:%^^:.;^l':^'.<^il®BigglBB®^^^ ^i?'^'i^i|sHCT;|)||t:^3T||i^|K|Bi^^||||@j|^^^^^ •t|5,|;||ii:l;;||ioBjt^N^jss|BS81iBBBBSBl§SI''^'^^^^^^ .i.NafiENjaas^a «1.; tilil.; iiQi^ ^iSs^KI^* Y^j©|||uo3gg»s^|g||Bg|Q^^|g|^|gpg ||j;||BH||^:.?|i||^|^||%||^S^||ff|g|@;,|||f||<>g^|^g^ •ili:i®iy:ilS^IIIWiBRBK13K*ffll:N8N^NKKJ:Bf ,;;y,i:?1:UO^pBSBa^^.I1ei&1ClS31HB •:^|SiHiiigSB.reg|:?agR§'i.gg®% :^ ^&'"si^^iEBV^^SB^: "^iBigg^nllai^ijl^sll^'lisE^^II;^,;; ySWWWtiVU9SSK^3SKwl^ lwMSS '. -a* :••'' •sa.Nnai^i^ :'a«5B8< ^esesi^ yss^[' Stf fesg^sifflEasaOTsagiEjaa^saBB^^ 'li'-': S9s: :SS& SBiBBaSsK ssnsu; i%..^^iS:^^^';N^^^ :• &SISK^ ^.^^,^^KS^SS&iS:•ii^;^;^£;^^^:'^%;S:^3^5^^'^^^^;^li^£ :'^ '^-^':^ ^^^N^^^^%^^^;^^^^^.^^'^>%§N^':K^K?^^^£i2L^sSi iia ,;-iil ^ '^ !a.: .fff.~:^ 1 isei'' J'. '"•^^ ...^ / :"^N/<Y.^ .^J .iBjltBWMMl HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Nawal Kishore Aarawal and Hon'ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar. JJ. Appellants Claimants Respondent Misc. Apoeal No. 906 of 2003 Bhuneshwar Prasad Soni and others. Versus Bachrai S/o Johanlal APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Neeraj K. Mehta, counsel for the appellants/claimants. Shri J.K.Shastri, counsel forthe respondent. liiroi ORAL ORDER (Passedon 09.02.2010) The following oral order of the Court was delivered by N.K.AgrawaI, J. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Dist. Koria (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 95/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,04,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants for the death of Suraj Soni i.e. the son of the appellants. 3. Facts briefly stated are as under: On 25.08.2002, the deceased Suraj Soni met with an accident by Motor Cycle bearing registration No. M.P.27/E-3268 while he was going to Baikunthpur. 4. The claimants, unfortunate parents of the deceased Suraj Soni, claimed Rs.27,00,000/- as compensation against the respondent by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Acf); ^''ri; •^"Elfe^ ^ iBJIiSK- i;i|l»i!ijU»!iW] 5. The Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced and on appreciation of the material placed on record as also submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, held that respondent is solely responsible for the said accident; assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as prescribed under llnd Schedule appended'to Section 163A of the Act; deducted 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus assessed the yearly dependency as Rs.10,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and thus awarded total sum of Rs.1,04,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son in the said accident. 6. Shri Neeraj K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smfc Meera Devi & Others vs. Sukhbinder Singh & others, 2009 (2) C.G.L.J. 128 (DB), argued that since the accident occurred in the year 2002, the Tribunal has erred in taking notional income as Rs.15,000/- which the Tribunal should have taken as Rs.30,000/- looking to the increase in price of essential commodities and cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 and prayed that amount of compensation be enhanced accordingly. 7. Per contra, Shri J.K.Shahstri, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellants are not dependents on the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation by taking the notional income ofthe deceased as Rs.15,000/- and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. In the present case'r.there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the multiplier of 10, as applied by the Tribunal. In Smt. Meera Devi & others v. Sukhbinder Singh & others (supra), this Court held as under: "14. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in III. laiiill-s:: (III n -3 the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and deceased Shyambihari lost his life in the motor accident which took place in the year 2002. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002 (the year of accident in the present case) is taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the notional income ofthe deceased at Rs.30,000/- perannum." In the present case, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed by the Tribunal taking into consideration the llnd Schedule appended to the Section 163A of the Act in the year 1994 and the deceased lost his life in the motor accident .which took place in the year 2002. Therefore, bearing the above said decision in mind, we propose to recompute the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-. 10 . So far as the question of dependency is concerned, the mother of the deceased is certainly dependent upon the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said that the parents are not dependents upon the deceased. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is already taken as notional income of the deceased. Since the claimants are parents, out of Rs.30,000/- we propose to deduct 50% of it towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the yearly dependency would work out to Rs.15,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 10 on the said amount, the compensation on account of loss of dependency would be at Rs.1,50,000/-. The appellants are further entitledto Rs.10,000/-towardsotherheads i.e. Rs.5000/-for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- instead of Rs.1,04,500/- 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. The compe.nsation of Rs.1,04,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest of 6% per annum.fpm the date of application till its realisation. Respondent is granted three months' time for depositing remaining compensation of Rs.55,500/- towards amount of enhanced compensation along with interest thereon- Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge R.E. Jhaiswar &' 7'^V1.