HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. ' HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 744 of 2002 1 Smt Sanju Devi, Wd/o Late Megha Majhi, aged 22 years Manish Kumar Majhi, s/o Late Megha Majhi, aged two years through Mother Goval Majhi, s/o Girdhar Majhi, aged 51 years 4 Smt Chunmun Devi, w/o GoyaFMgjhi, aged 5O years ,\\ 5 Manish Kumari, d/o Late Megha Majhi, aged 2 years, through Mother AH resident of Jalalpur Bazar, Thana Jalalpur Bazar, Distt Chhapra (Bihar) \\\\ VERSUS Respondents Pyara Singh, S/o Nirmal Singh, r/o Noneapplicants EWS — 275 Vaisalinagar, Supela Bhilai (Truck driver) 2 Balbir Singh Pattola, S/o Mahendra Singh R/o LIG 0-64- Vaisalinagar, Supeia Bhilai (Truck Owner) 3 Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. In front of Project Automobile Power House Bhilai, Durg MISCELLANEOUS‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ..._._- a... ' Present : Shri Arvind Dubey, counsel for the appellants. l Appelants Applicants None for respondents No.1 and 2 though sewed. Shri Shreekumar AgrawaL Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (15m April, 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 5‘” Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) vide award dated 19.07.2002, passed in Claim Case No.33/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,25,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Megha Majhi by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 29.02.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,06,500/- as compensation to the claimants 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'deceased Megha Majhi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.02.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MKS-8485; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poig conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiabie to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not tiled 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.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,92,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.14,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,06,500/- as compensation to ' the claimants for the death of deceased Megha Majhi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,06,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Arvind Dubey, 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 his income at Rs.2,000/— penmonth and'Rs.24,000/- per annum; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,06,500/— only. @W 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 the New india Insurance L CompanyVLimited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on'the other hand supported the award and contended that, as. the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as . pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.2,06,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Megha Majhi used to earn Rs.5,00D/- per month as Truck body builder / repairer, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000]- < per month. The evidence of AW4 Ajay Dalmiya does not establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000l- per month as he categorically admitted that he was not making any payment to the deceased and so also he was not keeping any record about the income of the deceased. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annUm. 9) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the tribunal at Rs.16,000/— per annum by deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is 'certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. //'l i -."J" 11)‘ Deceased Megha Majhi was shown to be 25 years of age in q:b his postmortem report and his widow Smt Sanju devi was shown to be 22 years of age in the claim petition. In our opinion, multiplier of 18 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multlplier of 18 is prescribed for the age group between 21 -25 years. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation works out to Rs.2,88,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,03,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Megha Majhi in‘the motor accident. 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 14) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest sega.‘”swu ~ I: w on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,500/- at Rs.8,500/—. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeuants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,06,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,03,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,500/—. 16) Respondent No.3 the New lndia Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/— (Rs.96,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.96,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. padma l l 17) No order as to costs. ~ L, Sd/- i p. Sunil Kumar Sinha Sdl- l Judge Chief Justice l