^ HIGH caURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Appellants/ ^ Claimants IVIA No. 434 OF2002 1. Madhvi Soni, Age 20 years, Wd/o late Madhvi Budhram. 2. Madhvi Budhram, aged about 2 years, S/o late Madhvi Budhram, aged about 2 years l(Minor) through Natural Guardian Mother Madhvi Soni,W/o Late Macjhvi. 3. Madhvi Verma, aged about 45 years, S/o Madhvi Dena. 4. Smt. Madhvi Sukdi Aged about 40 years, W/o Madhvi Verman, 5. Madhvi Kosa, aged about 3 months S/o Late Madhvi Budhram, (Minor) through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Madhvi Soni. All are resident of Village Mandi h^rka, PS Kutzu Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents Non-applicant 1 m J.- Kamal Manjhi, aged about 45 year6, S/o Ganesh Halba, R/o Bhairamgarh, Sanjay Para, Distt. Dantewada, Present Address Tadmerkutzu, Distt. Dantewada (Chhattisgarh). 2. Bodkuram, aged about 40 years, S/o Denaram, R/o Tadmar Distt. Dantewada (Chhattisgarh). 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.i Present : Shri Avinash K Mishra, Advocate for appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. 1. ORALORDER (Passed on 8th day ofApril, 2010) This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensatjon in the award dated 29.01.2002, passed by the llird Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Bastar (for short 'Tribunal') <n claim case No. 158/01. p i/.. •^- 2. The brief fa^ts of the case are as under: i. On 13.04.2007, Madvi Budhram (since deceased) met with an accident with Tractor & Trolley bearing registration No. MP-25/B-1774 & MP-25/8-1775 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. ii. The daimants i.e. Widow, minor child and parents of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of MV Act claiming Rs. 4,18,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased in the saidaccident. iii. The Tribunal^ on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submjssions made by the parties, held the driver of the tractorresponsible for the said accident; assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deeeased; held the age of the deceased as 35 years at the tlme of accident, applied multiplier of 12, assessed the amount of compensatjon towards loss of dependency at Rs. 1,44.000/- and further awarded Rs. 6,000/-on other Heads, thusawarded total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwjth interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of applicatjon till its payment. 3. Shri Avinash K Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that: a. The Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the jncome of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annumin view of decision of Division Bench ofthis Court in case of Smt. Nancjni Bai & Others v. Firtu Ram @ Pritam and Others1. b. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 21 years but the Tribunal has erred in holding that ' 2008 LT(CG) 151 .^.. c''11 ^^~ 8. thed!eceased was of the age of 35 years at thetimeof accidtent and thus has erred in applying multlplier of 12 in placQof18. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing jfor the respondent No. 3/insyrance company supported j the award and submitted that in the facts circumstance ofthe case, the amount ofcompensation awarded bytheTribunalisjust&reasonableanddeservestobeupheld. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of the Tribunal. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that age of the deceased pleaded by the claimants/appellants was 23 years and as per postmortem report, age of deceased was 21 years (Ex. P/5). Therefore, age of deceased at the timeof accident at the best may be taken as 23 years. In such cases, appropriate multiplier applicable would be 18 and not12. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2100/-per month, the evidence led by them in that behalf before the Tribunal was not clinching in nature. In this state of evidence, 1 do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the Tribunal iii view of event of discarcling claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased oughtto have been assessed his income on the basis of notional jncome prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. r 9. The notional income of Rs. 15,000/-was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the MV Act jn the year 1994. The unfortunate accident in the present case took place in the year 2001. If l take into consideration the increase in the prices ofthe essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 and 2001, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed Jn the Second Schedule in the year 2004 would come to Rs. 24.000/- in the year 2001. l therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. 10. Division Bench ofthis Court in case of Smt. Nandni Bai (Supra) has also taken the same view. 11. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. Deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, whereas his widow was shown20 years of age in the claim petition filed in the year 2001. In my opinion, the multiplier of 18 would be appropriate Z in the present case. 12. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 16,000/~ with the multiplier of 18, the compensation works out to Rs. 2,88,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/-towards funeralexpenses. The claimants, fhus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 3,03,000/-as compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. '•^ m ^' 13. 14. 15. 16. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute betweenthe partiesabout the period for which 1|he claimants are entjtled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensatjon, the amount of interest on the enhancjed amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal jtself. Considering all the relevant factors, including the delay in disposal ofthe claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company aione is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, 1 quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- at Rs. 37000/-. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,03,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 37,000/- on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,53,000/-. The respondent No.S/lnsurance Company is granted 3 months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-(Rs. 1,53,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 37.000/- towards quantifiedamount of jnterest onthe enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^-^1