HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. & HON'BLE SHR1 SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 161of2004 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Salik Ram Aged about - 47 years, Occupation - House Wife, R/o Ward No. 18, Near - Krishi Upaj Mandi, Abhanpur Tahsil & Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Dilip Lahara S/o Sri Samaru Lahare, Aged about - 24 years R/o Kadapar, Thana - Kurud Distt-Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Charanjeet Singh S/o Sri Jagjeet Singh, Gandhi, Aged about - 9 years, Through (Guardian Jagjit Singh), R/o Bus Stand, Abhanpur Tahsil & Distt.-Raipur(C.G.) 3. The United India Insurance Co. Limited, Branch Office - Raipur K^chahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLEACT 1988 Present: Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for ., r^pondent No.3. ORDER (15th July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev GyBta, C.J.: F.; This is daimants' appeal for enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') videaward dated 15.11.2003, passed inClaimCaseNo. 18/2003. 2) As against the compensation Qf Rs.12,20,000/-claimed by the appeltant, unfortunate mother of deceased Manoj Kumar Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 30.10.2002, when his Hero Honda motorcycte was dashed bythe offending vehicle Jeep bearing registratlon No.C.G.05 ZA/2018, resulting in multiple serlous injuries to Manoj Kumar Sahu, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The claimant further pleaded that her son Manoj Kumar Sahu was aged about 22 yearsand used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Electrician. 3) The owner of the offending vehicle Jeep did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. 4) The driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep contested the claimand denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. ~ The insurer took the further piea that the f deceased mdtorcyclist himself was responsible for the accident; the driver ofthe Jeep was not holding a valid driving licence; and the Jeep was being plied in breach ofthe policy conditions, 5) The claimants examined AW1 Savitri Bai and AW2 Yogesh Kumar Sharma in support of their ctaim, whereas the driver and H^fe' ^f': x f ^ ___^. 't, 1 l£.:i K 'l. ^O'J insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that claimant's son Manoj Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor.accident on 30.10.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingofthe driver of the offending vehicle Jeep; as the offending vehicle Jeep, on the date of the accident, was insured with The United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay ^ compensation to the claimant. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionat income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the ctaimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual 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.2,000/- under othei- heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as -' / . . • . compensatiori to the claimant for the death of her son Manoj Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on theabove amount of compensation of Rs.1,62.000/- @. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petjtion till the date of actual payment. ^"!3rB'!% ^A '^ 1 ff ' '3SP*^..^ •^ 8) Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- only. 9) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantiat compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- though the claimant coutd not establish the income ofthe deceased as pleaded in the claim petition. 10) The findingsrecorded bv the Tribunal thatclaimant's son Manoj Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30.10.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep was iiable to pay compensation to the claimant, have now attained finaiity as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence avaiiable on recqrd to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We.therefore, affirm theabove findings recorded by the Tribunal. ^ / 11) True, the Claimant pleaded that her son deceased Manoj Kumar Sahu used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Etectrician, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find anyfault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased. s.tueLuieio }Bt|i pej SL|I uoiiejspisuoo o}ui U9>|e.} os|e sAey SAA ei, jo jai|d!i|niu eqi Buipsiss SDMAA 'SSBO fuasejd eyi ui 3}eydojdde sq p|noM g l, jo J9!|d.4|nuj aqi }ei|t uoiuido 94} p 8JB 3M'sjeeA OS°» sjeeA st7 ussMisq dnojB aBe SLJI joi £[, 10 jsiidjiiniu seqyossjd py seioiqaA JOPIAI 34} jo Qinpayog puooss 841 pue uoiijiad LUIBIO aqi ui sBe jo SJBBA i^ sq 0} UMOIJS SEM nyeg jeiun»foye|ft| pesBsoap / -- p J94}oui 94} 'jeg UIJABS 'lUiS IUELUIBIO yeiQ Buuapisuoo ^\, •lunuue jed -/OOO'St'sy »e pessssse si 'ejo^sjaq} 'Aouepusdsp SJUBLUIBIO 3L|i •peseeoap 94} jo sasuedxs |euosjed eyispjeMO} -/O00'0£'sy P %OS pnpep 01 jedojd ^ lussp SM 'ieg UIJAES 'iujg tUBLUiep 'jeytouj siq pue ^ssiuiy peseeosp •a-i psseeoap 941 p aLuooui sy) uo luapusdep sjsquiaLU OM} A|UO SJBM sjeq} sy "ujnuue jsd -/OOO'OE'sy (B psseeoep 941 p SLUOOUI eq} 6u!>|ei uoiiesusdiuoo sqi 8}ndLuoo-3j Q} esodojd 'ejo^ejSLji 'e/w 'ZOOZ -leeA 94} "! -/000'0£'sy°1 3UJ°o Aiujeyao p|noM t?661 -IES^ 841 "! sinpsijos puooeg 341 ui paqyossjd -/OOO'St'sy jo siuooui |BUO!}OU Q^} 'iunoooe o}ui ua>|B} SJB 'ejii siq iso| nqes jBLunx foue|/y paseeosp uiajeiiM 'sseo luasajd 941 ui luspiooe p jeeA 94} 'ZOOZ -iBaA 94( pUB trQQ\, JBeA 941 U99AAl9q 6UIAII p }SOO eL|l pUE S9!l!pOLUUU03 leiiussss S4} p seoud eqi ui asesjoui 941 j| '^661 -IBSA 941 ui pv S9]OiqsA JO}0|^| 94} p v-S91 uoipag japun ainpsyos puooss 84} ui pequossjd SBM -/000'9l"sy 1° sujooui leuoiiou BIJI (gi. •uoiiejspisuooaj sejinbsj pue spis JSMOI 94} uo Aiuieyao si ujnuue jed -/000'St'sy IB leunqui 3L|l Aq pessssse psseaoep eyt p aLuooui sqi 'sseieyysASN (2 l. husband has died before the accident and the claimant was fully dependent on her son deceased Manoj Kumar Sahu. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency ofRs.15,000/- with the multiplier of13, the compensation works out to Rs.1,95,000/-. The claimant is further entitled ,to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses;and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensation for the death of her son Manoj Kumar Sahu in the motor accident on 30.10.2002. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between theparties about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive intereston the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17) The accident in the present case, wherein claimant's son Manoj Kumar Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimant in the year 2003; the Jmpugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003; the appellant/ claimant filed this appeal for enhancement of the -^ / compensation in the year 2004; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009, Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal ofthe 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.43,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,62,00.0/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,05,000/- With further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.43,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 The United India Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.43,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.43,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi