HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVIION BENCH HON BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA AND HON BLE SHRI R L JHANWAR, JJ ) i I APPELLANT CLAIMANTS I v I I I I I r MISC APPEAL NO 692 OF 2002 1) Phoolmati, wife of Late Shri Soru, aged about 50 years caste Mahra 2) Sukhdeo son of Late Somaru ae about 18 years caste Mahra Shyamnath ahas Samnath s/o Late Shn Somaru Kashyap, aged about 25 years _. caste-Mahra 4) rRamnath son of Late Shri Somaru, aged fabout 30 years, caste-Mahra, occupation-Agriculturist/Labour. ,J All are R/o Vlllage Mahra Haurnaar Post Office Tlkanpal PS Kuakonda Tah Dantewada Dlstt Dantewada (CG) VERSUS 1) Keshawram Sahu‘ S/o late Shri VSomnath Sahu, aged about 52 years R/o village Palnaar, PS Kuakonda, Distt. Dantewada, C.G. present address: Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur Bstar, Chhattisgarh. Ashok Singh, son of Rajeshwar Singh, aged about 30 years, r/o Metguda, Jagdalpur PS Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar, C.G. present address Bangali Camp, Kirandul Distt Dantewada CG 3) The New lndra Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager Branch Office Jagdalpur, Near Jhankar Theater, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. MISCELLANEOUS APPEL NDER SECTION 173 MOTOR VEHICLE , ’ ACT Ape pearanc 3) RESPONDENTS (OWNER) (EIRIVER) I N (ISURER) Mr Adrtya Kumar Advocate for the appellants M r Sudhrr Agrawal Advocate for respondent No 3 None for other respo‘ uRA RER v-(P‘assed on 14.09.2010) S S ma gd , a , , s A U e \ goL OD 2 ’ ' ‘ Misc. Aypeal No.692/2002 Per Sunil Kumar sinha, J. 1 The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of I ‘ .qompensatlon awarded In claim case No 256/2001 by the Motor Acmdents _ ‘ ‘ Qlalms Tribunal, Bastar at Jagqalpur wde award dated 12th Apm, 2002. , ‘ ‘ 2;. _ The appellants/claimants unfortunate mother and brothers of g deceased Shyamlal flled a clarm petltroh under Sectron 166 of the Motor , Viehrcles Act clalmmg compensation of Rs.8,15,000/— for hrs death m the} ‘ ntotor accident which to'ok place on 20 04 2001 when TATA 709 vehicle‘ L r ‘ ugf": ‘ bearing registration No M P 25 B 127d 1n which the deceased was‘j travelling as helper met with accrdent on account of rash and negllgent. ' ‘dhving ofthe said vehicle by its dnver ’ x t ‘J :3. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs 2000/1' ' f t ‘lvper month by working as helper In the said truck The deceased was aged” l ‘ I about 21 years. I 4.’ ' The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that deceased Shyamlal was earning Rs ‘1200/- per month by working as ‘ " ‘ ihel‘per By deducting Rs 400/— towalds personal expenses of the - ‘ deceased the dependency of the appellants was worked out to Rs 800/! i ‘ V ‘i- per month and the annual dependency waa thus worked out to Rs 9 600/— i_ ‘By applying multiplier of 7 to the said annual dependency of Rs 9 BOO/— ‘ ,3 the compensation was worked out to Rs 67 200l— No amount was f‘ ’ [awarded under any other head The Tribunal awarded interest at the rater of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tlll realization " ‘igzj'i; The Tribunal held that claimants No 3 & 4 (appellants Nol & 2 herein)‘ i i ,’ ‘ ‘ ‘ alone were entitled to receive the amount of compensation being the ll l ' mother and younger brother of the deceased The Tribunal further held .‘ l 1" that the respondents were Jelntly and severally liable to pay the eald if: ‘ y amount of compensation tothe above appellants. ' ‘5.‘ ‘Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the‘.‘ appellants argued that the income‘of the deceased was not assessed ‘ V ‘ properly and the multiplier used y the Tribunal was also not proper. He b ,, \ , ’ J ‘ \ 3 Misc. Appeal N$?2/2002 §l I ‘ : d for enh o nt f ompens aware I ul o the pellnt . On the o han, . dhir AgtawaL lean apearing or respdent N ' insran corn‘ opposed te argens a ' supported a ps b Cai Tnbl We h hea lerned counsel fr t ties t len a lso peru e record f aim e praye ancement f amou o cation dd by the ' w Trlbna t apas ' i 6 ther d Mr Su red counsei p l‘ ’ r f on o 3 uce pany hes umt nd : the awrd ased y the lms una ave rd a o he par a gth and hve sed th o cl cas a r na ( he dee a g per dng he ork o lper the l He r par 4 o nce t the de ud s.0 r ‘hs ter hw, the ribu he tht s g Rs.20b/— pe onth. Th Tril ie ‘sider the evidnce of said itss th mnt of Rs.1500/— per mon con e wne at aou th A in give t the mother an n that the a amount was, in fct,‘ .l was beg n o d ot sid a ‘ n he iome of e dece. Terefo the findng o te iul " , r ., t he i t de ot be st. I the cts ‘ l d umstanC f hi ase, ol r ld t e e as R.- r oh and Rs.2000/— pr anm. we to rp ount f coensatio o th a coe he eed s 00/— per a 00— nnu per am , ‘9. Amitdl the eceased wa bacher Tfoe wo be pp ductio om th Ine e owd his ‘ onal expenss, w of t u of th Ax our , ,l i ‘ ch i h b d that cas f aclr, e, ou 0 i, e dwold b . dedu f h nal ncom f .2000/--, he ecy wd c to ,000—. Lookin lthe ft hat t other ohe decase as aout 5 years nd e yoer brother ‘ ‘ ,f V. te deased s ae ut rs, it wod be pro to s , i itii of 10 n tté y ap muitipiier 0 to the nhua depend Rs200/, he censati ou 100 ‘ , ‘ dtey, d s a lo herer 50% uld roer den fr e com of the decased tars pers e in Vie he dictm e pe Ctin $yed ‘ Basheer Ahamed and Qthers. —Vs. M, Lhgmmed Mameel and Another, ‘ I, l ’ (2009) 2 SCC 225 in whi, t as een hel in e o bheo th v " deduction wld be 5% and in case of marred th deuction‘u e v v . fl/3rd By cting 50% rom te anu ie O Rs4, t dpenden odl ome Rs.12/ g to ac t he ‘ m ft ed w aged b 0 a th ung of h ec wa gd abo 18 yea ul per ue ‘ inuiper i this ntar. B plying of 1 ai ‘ " ‘ ‘ ency of .1,0— t ompon works t to Rs.,l2,00/-. l r mv m “ie“ Ramth AW 1) deposed that t cased ws earnin Rs 2000} month by or t w f he In said vehrce ‘ V stated In argaph f his evrde tha ceased se tolglve l V R'150/— pe month toi moh, oever Tnal ld a the" ‘ deceased wa ‘earnin 1 r M e buna fald to ‘ " t nc th ased hre, i f h Trbna in i" 3 tregard o t ncome of he ecased cann usained n fa 3 ‘ an circes o ts c lt wud be prope to ho hat th V .‘dceased w earning s2000/ pe mnt 4 e nu f Therefore propose ecomute the am o mpn n e r l‘ bsts of Inm of t decas a Rs 20 month nd Rs 240/ A a 4 Misc. Appeal No.692/2002 ‘By adding a further sum of Rs.10,000/— under other permissible heads, ' total compensation works to Rs.1,30,000/—. The Tribunal has awarded ~ Re 67 200/— By deducting Rs 67 ZOOI— from the aforesaid amount of“ Rs 1 30 000/- the difference comes to Rs 62 800/— The appellants No 1 & " 2/olaimants are thus entitled to receive a aum of Rs 62 800/— more as the nhanced amount of compensation for tha death of deceased Shyamlal in i " ‘ d he motor aCCIdent. ’ 1Q With a view to avoid further complibations and looking to the delay ‘ " “13!; in ‘idisposal of the claim petition as also Misc. Appeal and further that the . r ins‘urance company alone cannot be blamed for the delay, we deem it 'i ,‘ ppropriate to quantify the amount of interest in this matter We award“ ti; ‘ R ‘ a s 5200/— as the amount of quantified interest on the amount of enhanced " compensation of Rs 62 800l- Thus, the appellants No.1 & 2 are entitled o receive Rs 68000I— (Rs.62,800/— as the enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5200/— as the quantified interest) as the total amount ofi’enhanced compensation on account of death of deceased Shyamlal in t ‘ ‘ t l i ” ‘ i he motor accident. The New India insurance Company Limited is granted three months time to deposit Rs.68000/— with the concerned Claims Tribunal. 11. 12i. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 3?. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i i i i Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar i Judge §‘’<1‘J[- \J ‘ e t ‘ 1