HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 555 of 2011 1 Kaushilaya Bai Patle w/o Ram Gopal Patle, aged about 40 years, 2 Ramgopal Patle, s/o Jaitram Patle, aged about 43 years, Both are r/o village Kirani, Police Station Masturi district Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS 1 Raju Sikarwar, aged about 32 years, s/o Tilak Singh Sikarwar, r/o Bhanpuri, police station Khamtarai, tahsil & district Bilaspur C.G. (Driver of alleged vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04/ZC-1072) 2 Prabhat Shanker Mishra, aged about 45 years, s/o Mahendra Nath Mishra, r/o Sanmarg Road Lines, Ring Road No.2, Gondpara, tahsil & district Bilaspur C.G. (Owner of alleged vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04/ZC-1072) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, in front of Rajiv Plaza, -Bus Stand, tahsil & district Bilaspur C.G. (Insurer of alleged vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04/ZC-1072) Memo ofapDeal underSection 173 of lUIotorVehicleAct Present: Shri Sameer Singh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Aditya Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. S 1 Ls '^ ..L^^^ ^ 1 ^..?-^ A.C. No. 555 of 2011 ORDER (31st October, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 15.12.2010, passed in Claim Case No.251/2010. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,01,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Prahalad Patle, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 17.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimants' son Prahalad Patle died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.05.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-ZC/1072; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. '»- ssgs^,, s ^a^ g ^1' .A.C. No. 555 of 2011 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Prahalad Patle in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing hislncome at Rs.30,000/- per annum only; in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the tewer multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other ;-r-"'^^. .A.C.No. 555 of 2011 hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Prahalad Patle used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as Electronic Mechanic and L.I.C. Agent, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupations of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal in the year 2009 at Rs.30,000/- per annum is slightly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) In our opinion, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11) The deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses, considering that deceased Prahalad Patle on Ihe date of the accident was unmarried and the claimaRts are his parents, in our opinion, is appropriate in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 •^-s-.. '•-...32323»-" M.A.C. No. 555 of 2011 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 12) We, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 13) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with as the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Prahalad Patle in the motor accident. 15) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 16) For the foregoing neasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified ^) .A.C.No. 555 of 2011 amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty-seven thousand only) (Rs.25,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jusdce ^a.fa Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi