p IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATUBE AT BBLASPUR CHHATTISGAJRH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - '^? ^ / OF 2009 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE KIOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) €'(' APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS l^v •?*A 'yf^ ^-w RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS fv 1. Smt. Kamla Kurre, W/o Late Jitendra Kurre, aged about 22 years, 2. Ku. Anjali Kurre, D/o Late Jitendra Kurre, aged about 07 years 3. Mahesh Kumar Kurre, S/o Late Jitendra Kurre, aged about 02 years, [Appellant No. 2 to 3 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appellant No. 1 Smt.Kamla Kurre] All R/o- Village - Sakri, Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G. ) VERSUS 1. Shashikant Shukla, S/o L.P. Shukla, aged about 42 years, R/o - Kho-Kho Para, Purani Basti, Police Station - Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) [Driver of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZG/7284] 2. Chhaganlal Sahu, S/o Biselal Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o - Village - Sandi, Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) [Owner of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZG/7284] 3. The National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Complex, Shopping Maal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer ofvehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZG/7284] 4. Vinod Kumar Manuja, S/o Chelaram Manuja, R/o - Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) [Owner of vehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No. C.G.04/ZE/2543] ll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 833 OF 2009 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Non-apDlicants fi'i: 1. Smt. (^mla Kurre, W/o tate Jitendra Kurre, aged about 22 years. 2. Ku. Anjall Kurre, D/o late Jitendra Kurre, aged about 07 years. 3. Mahesh Kumar Kurre, s/o late Jitendra Kurre, aged about 02 years, (Appettant No. 2 to 3 being minor on behalf of through their legal guarclian mother appellant No. 1 Smt. Kamla Kurre). All R/o Village Sakri, Police Station- Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (CG). Versys 1 Shashikant Shukla, S/o LP Shukla, aged about 42 years, R/o Kho-Kho Para, Purani Basti, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). (Driver of Vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG 04/ZG/7284) 2. Chhaganlal Sahu, S/o Biselal Sahu, aged about 36 years R/o Village Sandi, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) (Owner of vehicle Tractor bearlng registration No. GG 04/ZG/7284) 3. The National Insurance Company LimitKl, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Offtce, Lal Ganga Complex, Shopping Mall, GE Road, Raipur, Distrtot Raipur (CG). (tnsurer of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG 04/ZG/7284) 4. Vinod Kumar Manuja, S/o Chelaram, Manuja, R/o Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, Dlstrtet Raipur (CG). (Owner of Vehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration N0. CG (W2E/2543). Memo of apDeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Shh/endu Pandya, Advocate for appellants. Shri Gautam Khetrapat, Advocate Tor respondent No.3. Shri GDWaswani, Advocate for respondent No. 4. siS ;,»;:i%.^ L:^i3&.SSFt^^V"-A^?ita^ jailpni p|nom BH 'yiuoiu ayi (noyGno^i >|JOM 0} pasn p3SB9;»p eifl uiiy jsd sy "peseeoap eqi jo suiooui 341 LUOJ^ y^uoui jsd -/OOS "sy Buuonpap ui pajje sey leunqyi paiueai leyi siiujqns pinoM S}UB||adde ayi JQJ |asunoo psueai 'eApued npusAiys "4S •AJSAOOSJ s}i ||ii uoiieoiidde jo aiep a4( tuoji uinuue jed %g p eiej syi IB (ssjeiu! qiiM 6uo|e -/oos'69'e.'sy pspJBMB snyi pue speay jsyio spJBMOi -/OOS'6 "sy papiBMB jsiftin^ leunqui p^UJB^^ -Aouspuadep p sso| p tunoooe uo -/000'09'£"sy papJBMB pue 'gl. jo jeiiditinui psildde 'sjesA fz, se paseeosp 941 p sBe ayi QI BUU|OO| 'psseaosp si|t ys sssuadxs leuosjsd SPJBMOI p,e/i, psonpsp. 'iunuue jsd -/OOO'OE 'sy 's'! iliuoiu jsd -/OOSZ 'sy IB siuooui l^ssssse 'sAeptioy SPJBMO} ytuoiu jed -/QOQ 'sy Buipnpep jeye »nq ytuoui jed -/OOOE 's"! ^BP •'sd -/ooi 'sy se psseeoep eyt j^o siuooui passssse 'iuapiooe pies ayi jo^ siqisuodsej [. •ON luspuodsaj 941 p|ey 'speuj suoissiuiqns pue peoe|d iBueieuj 'pai aouspjAS 941 jo Auitnjos asofo e uo leunqyi p^uJe^^ •8)U9puods8J 94} isuieBe psseeosp 84} p qieep eq»jo^ uonesusdiuoo se -/OOO'OO'S^ "sy BuiiuiBp 8861. 'PV sapNSA wVVt 3Mt jo 991 uoiioes jspun uoiieoiidde UB paiy 'pssesoep eqi jo uajpijyo jouiui pue e^iM 9ieun}jo^un 'StUBUJIBIO 8L)1 'lUSppOB P18S S^ ui psuiEtsns ssunfui eyi o\ psquinoons pue |. -ou luepuodssj Aq Aitus&iBeu pue AWSBJ usAUp Buieq fr8ZZ/9Z W 90 'ON JOIOEJI qiiM luepi.ooE ue qijM (suu 94 'jpB^eueqeg a6e||!A JBSU 'ejof 0} !J>|es sBeiiiA lUOJt £t7SZ/3ZTO 90 "ON 8|oAojoio|n uo BuioS SBM pesBeoep ayi U84M 9002-6-fr !• uo 41 8JB SSBO 341 jo sioej laug •3jjn»ejpustir paseaoap p yiesp QIQ jo^ uoiiesuedujoo se SIUBUJIBIO 341 io jnoABi ui papjBMB uaaq seii -/QOS'69'£ •sy io iunoiu& ue jspunsjayM pue AqsjaMM ^CKKIO^ "ON SSBQ UIIBIO u! jndiey 'ieunqyi SUIIBIQ luspioov wyn leuoiuppv pjlll Aq psssed 8003 'lsnCny ^61. psiep PJBMB eqi ui uoiiesusdiuoo p 4uaui80UBiiU9 Bui>|9as lesdde ,s»ueiuiBp si siyi •AIIBUU pjeey si JSUBUI 9i|i 'ssiijed 84^0 tussuoo eyi qijM (OtOZ 'yoJBM *o Aep ^,81. uo passed) yaayo-ivyo contend that after taking into consideration the increase in the price index in the year 2006, the notional income would be Rs. 3QOO/- per month and therefore the amount of compensation deserves to be suitabty enhanced. 5. Per contra, Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same deserves to be upheld. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 7. Learned Tribunal in para 17 of its judgment has in fact held that the deceased used to earn Rs. 100/- per day but on its presumption that he used to work only for 25 days in a month, assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month. 8. Considering the cost of livlng and increase in the prtee index in the year 2006, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 30,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and it ought to have been assessed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The same view has been taken by the Diviston Bench of this Court in MA.(C) No. 781/2007 (Smt. Puni Bai and others -v- Smt. Manjushri and others) decided onl 1-9-2009. Therefore, 1 propose to re-compute the compensatlon after taking yeariy income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3"i of it towards personal expenses in the factsand circumstances of the case, appropriate multiplicand would be Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 18, the amount would come to Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. By adding Rs. 9,500/- towards other heads as awarded by the Tribunal, the total amount'for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 4,41,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,69,500/-, therefore, the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation. 9. Leamed counsel for. the parties submitted that with a view to aVoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the etaimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may bequantifled in this appeal itself. 10. Considering all the relevant factors, l quantify the amountof interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 72,0001- at Rs. 5,000/-. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,41,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 5,000/- on the enhanced amount of Rs. 72.000/-. 12. The respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company is granted 3 months' tlme for depositing the total sum of Rs. 77,000/- (Rs. 72,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensatlon + Rs. 5,0007- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the conceming claims Tribunal. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu fv ^S£S ?@3^;^SR^^=^