4 a? aw HGH I COUT R OF CHTI HATSGARH AT BILASU PR DMIO‘BECH SNN HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C ; & HON’BLE SHR‘ RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J., C. ORAM Sm au Nish /o ae Nlshaudin aed about 43 year Ku. :Hasee at ge acut 22 ears fza,‘ s/o Iae . ishaudin ae bdut years. Ku. uin, of n e aout 18' ear l ro medar ard near ange hawan Jaau C G ’( ) pgea n Pmtu mh so rina mg Non—aHgnts’ Rdts: esponen ged bou ear /o haninagar War Jaaour drs astar(CG rr ara ingh / haninaga ' agaur‘ 'distf Basfar C; nite r nsuran ompany, ranch Jagdal BtnCG) asa l pp 88 Mrscelanenus Aea! ulS 173 ofthe Meter Vehlcie Act 19 hn Vrkas Shnvastava counsei for the appeilant S s hr} Dashrath Gupta a’rd Shrr Anand Kumar G, pta S , w ,. isc. Aea!‘ Nos 429 of 2 M pp W5 t Jhar a w lt Md d g s ‘n D/o le Md. Nishauddin, ad b y. Al t Md Nd, gd a 2O Jha dllateMd. Nishauddi, agd b ys, ' Al / Abk W M! VB gdipr distt Bastarii All‘nts VER$US Sh Sg / Shth Sh (ppa)‘ a at 29 ys R‘ St d gdi t B) Sh Pgt Smgh s/o Shri Sun‘eet VS, Ro Str Ward‘,’: : Jdip, ‘ (G.)' The Ud Inda ice ,C B p . Present 1S‘ Decembey, 2010 ( ) e filowing order 9f the Court, was assed b ajev Gui‘a’ .‘ :This is claimant’ appeal r fqr enhnCement of th ompensator‘iharde‘d' by the. Third Additinai' Motor Accident Claims Tribu’rSaI, Jagdaipur (for Ishoirt ‘tei Tribunai’ vide awa h ) rd té 3 0 ’dad'1 9.1 1 2004 passed in Claim case No 64/204 2) h o - io _ 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death m the motor aolen‘ m the Intervenmg night of 28‘“ 29‘” May, 2003 the Tnbunat _ awarded a total sum of Rs 1 90 000l- as compensation along With interest @ 6% per annum from the date of frhng of the clatm ' petition trl! the date of actuat paymen 3) The Tnbunat on a close scrutlny of the entire evrdence l before lt held that deceased Md Nlshauddm dted on accou of the lnjunes sustalned by hlm In the motor accident in he , l intervening night of 28*“ 29th May, 2003 the acCident occurre due to rash and nedilgent dnvmg of the driver of the offendin vehicle Truck bearing registration NoC G 17ZCJ0450 as th bove offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accrdent was insured With the United lndla Insurance Company Llmlted the I V, s agamst the compensation of Rs 11 00 GOOf- ciaimed by te appellants/clalmants unfortunate Widow and chudren f t deceased Md t Nlshauddm by fiimg a claim petition under Sectn cdt Thk b p y Ré p CJ S é e ciW’ é A I t ‘ ; _ u ed " nt V t 1 d o l § r e “ a hsuran'cé Company was_!iablé to y compensatio t V i , pa n o thé lclaiman'ts; ' 4) As the respondents have not med any anpeal against the award the above flndmgs recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finallty.. 5):. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs 2 500/— per month By deducting a sum of Rs 1 000l- towards the personal expenses of the deceased the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs1 500l- per month and Rs 18 ODOI- per annum By muttlptytng the annual dependency of _ Rs18000/— With the multrpher of 10 the compensation was LT ' _ worked out to RS1 80 000/« By awarding further sum of Rs 10 OOOf- under other heads the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs 1 90 OOO/- as compensation to the ctatmants for the death of deceased Md Nlshauddm In the motor acoldent The Tnbuna! further directed payment of Interest on the above amount of I i compensation of Rs 1 90 OOO/~ @ 6% per annum from the date of; r 1 fume of the clarm petition tilt the date of actual payment ) Shn Vxkas Shnvastava learned counsel for the appellants f submitted that the Tribunal has erred In selecting the lower ‘ multiplier of 10 and In awarding low compensation of l f ‘Rstt 90 000/- oniy “I 7)" 5 Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Anand Kumat' Gupta ‘ teamed counsel for respondent No3 the United India Insurance f " C d ompany Llmfted on the other hand supported the award an } 7‘ “ x " w a _ 3 t t p c d he Tribunal is just and proper comensation In the fats an _ t f h . Circumsances o te present case 8) n at-motor accident claim ase; hat is’imortant is that teoompehsation to be ‘awarde'dib the Cgurts/Tribunals s’houi b j s o e ,t f mi o Bnan _ copensaton, nr a oza. 9 R 0 b e’f pr ompensation m he facts and Circumstances of the resent case 1(3) he claimants cannot have any legitimate rievance about if he assessment income of the deceased by the Tribunal a Rs._,50/- per month, as the claimants themselves pleaded and proed the ihco f xn on _ 1 e cai‘mahts’, den‘ehcy also hs been rightl assesse by e ,Tribiin’ai a Rs.1.sooi- per mohth and. Re.18,000/- ‘e anhum yideducting Rs.1,0GOf- toardshe persona! exense , f sed o the decea. 2) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is certainly o e lower Side and reuires reconSiderati V 1 n )). Deceased Md Nishauddin was shown to be 45 years of - age in is postmortem report ln our opinion multiplier of 13 ould be approoriate in the present case in View of the recent ictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and ‘; ‘ J c W p , h‘ ’y d e ust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance“ f the cas. i 'shoui'd. neither be a meager amount o ). w; e sall examine as to whether the compensation of S1 9 OOI- arra‘rded ‘by ‘thTribunal is just and prOe c t p T g 7 :t t ' ~20 V me o the deceased to that etet ly. 1) Th l ped a y d ‘ th t pr x b wt ps” No w h ; th q on 3 p h w l irid _ thers VersusDelhi‘Transort'Coror'ation and anothe O pp r, ~ reorted m 21 p (2009) s scc 1 ‘1 y mulhymg e annual deendenc of s 18 OOOI— Wit 4) B pl th py R h ' w Jthe multipher'o , te comensatlen wors out o Rs‘.34,0!—. , f 13 h p k t 2,00 e futh eted to beiv 50D ds The claim‘antsar ‘ter nit! ree Rs.,O/- towar penses; Rs5,DOO/—-for ioss of estatf ad R,/— gfuneral ex- . e n s.5000 ., er los’s oficonsortim‘tothe dow. he claiats tus, bo gled o: receiVe aitotal Sum of Rs.2,49,000/- cmpenstion entit t ' as oa i-for? the deth of eceed Niudn in th mot at a daS Md. shadi e or cciden ' 15) Learned counse or e names uie h i ito avord any pol e ar th .4 ssrbe dispute btween the pties about e ‘ period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest o 'the enhanced amount f compensaion e amount o inerest o t t th f t n the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif r16) ConSIdenng ail the relevant aspects of the matter including .5 the delay in disposal of the claim petition andthe present appeal and the fact that Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed ‘ for the entire delay in the matter we quantify the amount of ~ interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs 59 OOOI- ‘ i' at Rs‘6,000l-. ' ‘ " l7) ‘ For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part The compensation of Rs1 90 000!— awarded by the Tribunal ts enhanced to Rs 2 49 OOGI- With further quantifed r v f u wi T mn, h ecme l f th sbmttd tat Wth a View " v n g ' V V a t of mount ofk‘inter'est of Rs.6,000/— onthe enhanced amoun compensation of Rs.59,‘000/-. 8) Respondeht No.3.The nied a ne r1 Ut Indi lsurancCompany Limited is granteti three months’ time for depositing the total su of Rs.65,000/— (Rs.59,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6',000l— towards quantified amount-of interes on the enh‘anced‘amount of compensation of Rs.59,000f—)'before the concerning Claims Tribunal. Sd/- R.N. Chandr'akar t ' Judge ‘ i l ll r, _~"al X15" m t l