HJGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSJOMBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.CJ. KON'BLE SKRi SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. ^' ADpellants Claimants MA No.185/2003 Smt Sarvari Beaum, W/o Late Nlsar Ahitsed, aged 25 years Azaz, S/o Late Nisar Ahmed, Aged 4 years (Mlnor) C/o Smt San/'ari Begum Both resident of Musalmanpara, Post Saralpail, DIott Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Respondents 4 7 8 Baivindar, age 24 yers, S/o Gurdeep Singh, Caste - Panjabi Address Janta Quarter No.23 Behind Bharatmata School, Tatibandh;PO Tahsll & Distt Ralpur (CG) Gurdeep Singh, S/o Rudra Singh, R/'o Babbar Khalsa Transport, P Tattbandh, Tah & Distt Raipur The Orientai Insurance Company Ltd., Mandai Office No.2, Pandari Ralpur (CG) Balram Rana, S/o Nandlai/Rana, R/o Village Gadhgaon, Thana Riasana, Distt Mahassmund (CG) 5 Kartik Ram Patei,S/o indrajeet Patel, R/o Village Sarhgaon, Thana - Basana, Distt Mahasamund (CG) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through : MandaE OITice, Katchari Chowk, PO & Distt Raipur (CG) Noor Mohd., aged 72 years, S/o Ahmed l<han (Deceased father) Jainab - B aged 65 years, W/o Noor Svlohd (deceased mother) ,^^:\^ J l'-%FS^i^ <!^e^ "^^5^ c ,c c... R/o Mohalla Pankapara, P Basana, Distt Mahasamund(CG) SVJiscetlaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicleAct Present : Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appeliants. None for respondents No.1,2,4,5 and 8 though served. Shri Saurabh Sharma, counse! for respondent No.3. Shri Vinay Pandey and Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, counsel T'or respondent No.6. QRDER (23rd August, 2010) The folJowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Eighth Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated- 30.10.2002, passed in Claim Case No.30/2002. 2) As against the compensation of 6,00,000/- claimed by the appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son of deceased Nisar Ahmed by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.07.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation along wlth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) The parents of deceased Nisar Ahmed i.e Noor Mohd., and Jainab - B aiso claimed CQmpensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for his death by filing a separate ciaim petition which came to be ^'- registered as claim case No.31/2002 and was decided by the Tribunai vide impugned award dated 30.10.2002. The Tribunai apportioned the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- between the ciaimants in ciaim case No.30/2002 and 31/2002 in the ratio of Rs.1,20,000/- : Rs.70,000/-, meaning thereby that the parents of the deceased were awarded Rs.70,000/- and the wldow and the son (appellants in this appeai) were awarded Rs.1,20,000/-. 4) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence Eed before it heid that deceased Nisar Ahmed died on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.07.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent drivina of the driver of both the vehicles i.e. ths Truck and the Metador; the extent of liabiiity of the two drivers of the Truck and the Metador was to the extent of 25% and 75% respectively; as both the vehicSes J.e. the Truck and the Mstador were Insured on the date of the acddent, the insurers of both the vehicles were liable to pay compensation to the cialmants to the extent of 25% and 75% respectively. 5) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity."" 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the clajmants'dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multlplylng the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multlplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Nisar Ahmed in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 7) Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appeliants submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only ; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- oniy. 8) Shri Saurabh Sharma, counseE for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Shri Vinay Pandey and Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.6 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Deceased Nisar Ahmed was aged about 30 years on the date of the aeddent. The claimants pleaded that he used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month by working as helper in the Metador. As no cogent and reiiable evidence was led by the claimants to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,500/- per month, we do not flnd any fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. ^'..f,., •k \...^^ (_ 10) NevertheSess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2000 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Deceased Nisar Ahmed being 30 years of age, could have easily earned Rs.70-80/- per day working as un-skilied iabour. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have assessed his income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,QQQ/- per annum. Sy deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency isassessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 12) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, their son and the parents of the deceased, we are of the opinion, that mu!tip!ier of 15 wouid be appropriate in the present case. 13) By muitiplylng the annual dependency of Rs. 1 6,000/- with the muftipller of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By adding the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Nisar Ahmed in the 'motor accjdent. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any posslbie dispute between the partles about the period for which the cEaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal Itself. i';'1^.. "-A 1 ^'^ s ^y^ (.. c- 6 15) Considering all the reievant aspects Including the delay in disposai of the claim petitionand the present appeai, and the fact that the insurance Companies aione are not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- at Rs.4,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- with furtherquantifled amount of interest of Rs.4,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and respondent No.6 the New Sndia Insurance Company are granted three months' time for depositing Rs.16,000/- and Rs.48,000/- respectiveiy before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) The entire enhanced amount of Rs.60,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/- shali be payabie to the appellants, who are wldow and son of deceased Nisar Ahmed and the other claimants i.e the parents of the deceased shai! not be entitled to get any share from this amount of Rs.64,000/-. 19) No order as to costs ,- Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma