IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CC.G.) M.A. (C)\^3^> /2007 APPELLANTS^ CLAIMANT ^o ^?^ ^'3$3r »?°•" ...-^.e' RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANTS 1. Niranjan Patel S/o Chintamani Patel aged about 38 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Village Chichiya, Thana Junagarh District Kalahandri (Orissa) Minor Avinash Patel S/o Niranjan Patel aged about 7 years Ocupation Dependent, Minor through guardian father Niranjan Patel, S/oOiintamani Both R/o Village Chichiya Thana Junagarh, Tehsil Dharamgarh, Distt. Kalahandri (Orissa) VER.SUS Shrawan Kumar Singh aged about 28 years S/o Rammilan Singh Caste Rajput, R/o Vibharpur, Thana Motigarpur District Sultanpur Occupation Driver (U.P.) Present R/o Globe Carrier Gorkha, Thana Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tehsil and District Raigarh (CG.) Ravindranath Singh S/o Shri Jaiprakash Singh, Occupation Transporter, R/o Gerakha, Tehsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata Head Office I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, The Office I.C.I.C.I. Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051 Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 173 of the MQt_Qf^\/ehicle Act, 1994 2. 3. ^- 1 ^^^ 2ss^^^s^K^35^^=%5f;;i;..siSS^^S« ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^eg®^t^5B5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQNo. 1436 of2007 APPELLANT CIaimant Niranjan Patel & Aaother Versus RESPONDENTS Shrawan Kumar Singh & Others Non-aBpBcante Memo ofappeal under Secrion 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (SB: Hon'bleMr.N.K.AearwaI,J.) Present : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate for appellants. None for respondent No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 14th day ofJnfy, 2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. Tfae appeal is formally admitted for hearing. 1. 2. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 31.07.2007, passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 27/06. Brief facts of the case are that, Ae appellants/claimants are husband and minor son of deceased Sukanti Patel (Since deceased) aged about 35 years. On 19.08.2006, Sukanti Patel was dashed by the driver ofDumper bearing registration No. JH- 09-E-6284 by drivihg the said vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result ofwhich she died on the spot. The appellants/claimants iSled a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), claiming Rs. 80,40,000/- as compeasation against the driver/owner and insurer ofthe offending vehicle for the death ofdeceased in the said accident. 8, The Tribunal on a close scrotiny ofthe evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the respondent No, 1/driver of the offendmg vehicle responsible for the said accident; assessed the income ofthe deceased at Rs. 1300/- per month i.e. Rs. 15,600/- per annum, by deductiag 1/3 ofit towards personal expenses ofthe deceased, assessed annual loss ofdependency at Rs. 10,400/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 17, awarded Rs. l,76,800/-on account of loss of dependency. Learaed Tribunal fiirther awarded Rs. 22,000/- on account of other heads, and tiius awarded Rs. 1,98,800/- as total eompensation in favour of claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its recovery. Shri AL Singroul, leamed counsel for the appellants would eontend that although the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 17, but has also erred in taking into eonsideration fhe mcome of the deceased at Rs. 1300/- per month i.e. Rs. 15,600/- per annum. By placing reliance upon the judgments of Division Bench ofthis court m the matter Premlata & Others v. Rasul Khaa & Others and in matter of Shiv Kumar & Others v. Maleshram and Others, Shri Singroul would fartfaer contend that since Ihe accident took place in the year 2006, flie notional income ought to have been taken at Rs. 3(X)0/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/-per annum by the Tribunal, and therefore the amount of compensation deserves to be sui,tably enhanced. On the oAer hand, Shri Amrito Das, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No, 3 would eontend tiiat the award passed by the Tribunal isjust and proper and deserves to be upheld. I have heard learaed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the award impugned and records ofthe Tribunal. '2008(2)CGU378(DB) 22006LT(CG)96 ^i 9. Considering the cost of living and increase in the price index in the year 2006, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,600/- per annum is certaiDly on tfae lower side and it ought to have been assessed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The same view has been taken by tfae Division Bench of this Court ia M.A.(C) No. 761/2007 (Smfc Puni Bai and others -v- Smt. Manjushri and others) decided oa 11-9-2009. However, the claimants themselves have pleaded the monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs. 2700/- per month, Iherefore, m the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the considered opinion of this court, the amount of compensation needs re-computation taking into consideration monthly income oftfae deceased at Rs. 2700/- per month i.e. Rs. 32,400/- per annum. 10. Looking to the fact that husband ofthe deceased and one minor son are the claimants, I propose to apply multiplier of 12 instead of 17 as applied by the Tribunal. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, yeariy loss of dependency would be Rs. 21,600/-. By applying multiplier of 12, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,59,200/-. By adding Rs. 15,000/- on account of other heads, the total amount for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 2,74,200/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,98,800/-, therefore, the claimants are entitled for a forther sum ofRs. 75,400/- as compensarion. 11. Leamed counsel for the parties sflbmitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for whieh the claimaats are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation, the amount ofinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. FTHH' .swS\ !l h ^ 12. Considering all the relevant factors, I quantify the amount of intercst on tfae enhanced amount ofRs. 75,400/- at Rs. 8,000/-. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation ofRs. 1,98,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhmiced to Rs. 2,74,200/- with farther quantified amount ofinteres?t ofRs. 8,000/- on tfae enhanced amount ofRs. 75,400/-. 14. The respondent No. 3/Iasurance Company is granted 3 montiis' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 83,400/- (Rs. 75,400/- towards enhanced amount ofcompensation + Rs. 8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the conceming claims Tribunal. In case, the amount is not deposited within a period ofthree months, the claimants are farther entitled for the interest @ 7.5 percent per annum fmm the date ofthis order on the enhanced amount of award i.e. Rs. 75,400/-.No order as to costs. Sd/- — N.K.Agarwal Judge Sahu