A.PJ-< HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: DiViSiON SENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUF.AAR SiNHA, Misc ADpeaJ No.7Ss/2( ADDeliants Claimants Respondents (Driver) (Own.er) (Insurer) 1 2 3 Ramwati Bai, aged about 35 years Sushila Bai, aged about 30 years Praveen Kumar, aged about 12 years Ku. Pooja, aged about 10 years Ku Aarti, aged about 8 years Ku Khusbu, aged about 4 years Applicant no.1 and 2 widow of RamKumar Kenvat. ipplicant No.3 to 6 Father Ramkumar Kenvat, represented through appeiiant no.1, mother Sushila Bai, Widow of-RamkumarKenvat. 7 Chameia Bai, aged about 60 years, Wife of Chouthram Kenvat Ali resldent of Village Korbi, PS Pasaan, Tshsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattlsgarh Versus Shivcharan, aged about 28 years, Son of Bodhan Sahu, Driver of Truck. Residence of village i^nkalln Coiony, Simga, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Gurdeep Singh Bhatia, Aged about 40 years, Son of Gurudayal Singh, Truck Owner, Residence of Simga, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Divlsionat Manager, Orientat Insurance Company Limited, Mahaveer Gaushala Complex, Maudapara, Raipur, ChhaSisgarh l^; Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Sude'ep Agrawai, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2, though served. Shri Sudhir Aarawa!, counsel for respondent No.3. (9th Apri!, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1 0th Additiona! Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 17.08.2004 passed in claim caseNo.21/2004. 2) The ctalmahts, the two unfortunate widows, minor children and mother of deceased - Ramkumar Kenvat ciaimed compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 26.11.2001 when his motorcycle was dashed by the offending vehlcle - truck bearing registration No.MIR/9191 resultlng in hls instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased - RamkurDar Kenvat was aged about 36 years and used to earn / Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from his General Store and Rs.70,000/- per annum from agriculture. 3) The owner ofthe offending vehicte did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal. 4) . The driver and insurer of the offendina vehicle - truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensatlon •^s to the clalmants. The driver pleaded that his vehicle was not involved in any accident, whereas the insurer took the piea that the driver of the offending vehicie — truck was not hoiding a valid driving ticense and the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it heid that deceased - Ramkumar Kenvat died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.11.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle - truck; as the offending vehicte - truck on the date ofthe accldent was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to thectaimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the Income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Sectlon 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. By deducting 1/3ri of Rs.15,OOQ/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying theannual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was Worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.32,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased - Ramkumar Kenvat in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of Rs.1,92,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing the of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Sudeep ^grawal, learned counsel for the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunal has erred In not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deeeased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding lowcompensation of Rs.1,92,000/- only. 8) Shri Sudhir Agrawat, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Orientai Insurance Company on the other hand supported the award and submitted that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pieaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The findings recorded by the TTibunal that deceased Ramkumar Kenvat died on accountofthe Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.11.2001; the driver of the offending vehicle - truck was responsibie for the accldent; and the Insurer of the offending vehicle was liabte to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained flnallty as the respondents have not filed ,any appeal against the award. That apart, these flndings are not under challenge befsre us in thls appeal. We, therefore, afflrm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramkumar Kenvat used to earn Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from his General Store ahd Rs.70,000/- per annum from agriculture, but the evidence led In that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal In discarding the claimants' evldence about the income of the deceased. . 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed bythe Tribunal at Rs.15,000/-per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedute under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Is certainty on the lower sideand requires re-conslderation. 12) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehtcles Act in the year 1994. Theaccldent in the present case wherein deceased Ramkumar Kenvat tost his life took place In the year 2001. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodlties and the cost of living between the years 1 994 and 2001 is taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 13), gy deducting 1/3ftl of Rs.30,OQO/- towards the personai expenses of the dece^ed, the ctaimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/-per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Ramkumar Kenvat was aged about 36.years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that muttiplier of TSwould be appropriate in the present case in ^iew 6f the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of New tndia X. Assurance Company Limited Vs Kalpana (Smt) and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538. 15) By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multlpiler of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wldow and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, the claimants become entitled to recelve a totai sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ramkumar Kenvat in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibte dispute between the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon may be quantified In this appeal itself. 17) Considering a!l the retevant factors including the delay in the disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/- at Rs.17,000/-. 18). For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation Is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/-, wlth further quantifled amount of interestofRs. 17.000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of R&.83,000/-. 7 ^. E» 19) Respondent No.3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.83,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.17,000/- towards quantlfied amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/-) before the concerning Ctaims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma '-».