^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUKE AT BH.ASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - & ^ ^ OF 2009 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 19S8) APPELLANTS 1. CLAIMANTS \3>€^ ^y^ .y[' - - •^ 3. ^:.$ ,^? :.v'^" 4. Smt. Usha Bai, W/o Late Ashok g Kumar, aged about 25 years, Ku. Renu, D/o Late Ashok Kumar, aged about 07 years Ku. Sandhya, D/o Late Ashok Kumar, aged about 05 years, Ku. Aarti, D/o Late Ashok Kumar, aged about 03 years [Appellant No. 2 to 4 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother appellant No. 1 SmtUsha Bai] All R/o- Village - Bhurkoni, Police Station - Dharsiwa, District Raipur VERSUS c^ t' ^f RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS 't^ 4. 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] 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] The National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Complex, Shopping Maal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer of vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZG/7284] 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] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEfflCLES ACT, 1988 r HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BUASPUR MISC. APPEAL (0 No. 830/2009 AJPPBLLANTS RESPONDENTS Smt. Usha Bai and others Versus Shastukant Shukla and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESBNT:- Shri Shiveridu Pandya, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 4. None for o^her respondents. ORAL ORDER (11-3-2010) Per N.K. Aiaraal, J With consent of tfae parties, heard finaUy. 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in fhe award dated 19th August, 2008 passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 41/2007 whereby and whereunder an amount ofRs. 3,69,500/- has been awarded in favour ofthe claimants as compensation for the death of deceased Ashok Kuinar aged about 26 years at the time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14-9-2006 when the deceased was going on Motoreycle No. CG 04 ZE/2543 along wifh his friend Jitendra as pillion rider from vlllage Salcri to Joi^, near viUage Bahanakadi, he met with an accident with Tractor No. CG 04 ZG/7284 being driven rashly and negligentty by respondent no. 1 and succumbed to the mjuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants, unfortunate wife and m.inor children of fhe deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clatmmg Rs. 32,00,000/- as compensation for fhe death ofthe deceased against the respondents. 3. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, -material placed and submissions made, held the respondent No. 1 responsible for the said accident; assessed income of -'"•a'h- the deceased as Rs. 100/- per day i.e. 3000/- per month but after deducting Rs. 500/- per monfh towards holidays, assessed income at Rs. 2500/- per month i.e. Rs. 30,000/- per annum, deduced l/3rd towards personal expenses ofthe deceased, looldng to fhe age of fhe deceased as 26 years, applled miiltiplier of 18, and awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of loss of dependency. Leamed Tribunal further awarded Rs. 9,500/- towards other heads and fhus awarded Rs. 3,69,500/- along wlth interest at fhe' rate of 6% per annum from the date ofapplication till its recoveiy. 4. Shri Shivendu Pandya, leamed counsel for the appeUants wonld submits that leamed Tribunal has erred in deducting Rs. 500/- per monfh from the income ofthe deceased. As per him the deceased used to work fhroughout the monfh. He would further contend that after taking into consideration the increase in the price index in the year 2006, the notional income would be Rs. 3000/- per month and therefore fhe amount ofcompensation deserves to be siiitably enhanced. 5. Per contra, Shri Goutam Khetrapal, leamed coiinsel for fhe respondent No. 3 would submit that the compensation awarded by fhe Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same deseryes to be upheld. 6. I have heard leamed coiinsel for the parties and perused the unpugned award. 7. Leamed Tribiinal m para 17 of its judgment has in ta.et held that the deceased used to eam Rs. 100/- per day but on its presumption that he used to work ordy for 25 days ta a month, assessed monfhly income of the decea^d as Rs. 2500/- per month. 8. Considering fhe cost of livtng and mcrease in the price mdex tn the year 2006, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 30,000/- per annrun is certainly on (he lower side and it ought to have been assessed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in M.A.(q No. 761/2007 (Smt. Punl 'Bai and others -v- Smt. Manjushri and others) decided on 11-9-2009. Therefore, I propose to re-compute the -t^. compensation after taking yearty income of the deceased as~ Rs. 36,000/- per annum. By dedueting l/3al of it towards personal expenses in (he facts and drcumstaaces of the case, appropriate multiplicand would be Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 18, fhe amoimt would come tb Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. By adding Rs. 9,500/- towards other heads as awarded by the Tribiinal, the total amount for which (he claiinants are entitled comes to Rs. 4,41,500/-. The Tribi-inal has awarded Rs. 3,69,500/-, therefore, the claimants are entitted for a further sum ofRs. 72,000/- as compensation. 9. Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a vlew to avoid any possible dispute between fhe parties about the period for which fheclaimants are entitled to receive interest on fhe enhanced amoiuit of compensation, the amoiiat of interest on fhe enhanced amoiuit of compensation may be quantifled in fhis appeal itself. 10. Considering all the relevant factors, I qiiantify the amount of interest on the enhanced ainoiint of Rs. 72,000f- at Rs. 5,000/-. 11 . For the foregoing reasons, fhe appeal flled by the appellants/claimants for eiihancement of the compensation is aUowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,41,500/- with further quanttQed amount of interest of Rs. 5,000/- on the enhanced amount ofRs. 72,000/-. 12 . The respondent No. 3/InsLirance Compaay is granted 3 months' time for depositing fhe total sum of Rs. 77,000f- (Rs. 72,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 5,000/- 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