Apgaiiaa‘is Claimants K) “K Qasmmgemg f\ian«app§iaants HrQH SQIRT GF CF3HA?TE$GARH f-ET §§L&SPE}R §E¥§S§GN EE§%ECH €QQ§§M: %%§§’ELE SiriRi RJEJEE‘J QEW‘R {33 H$N’§LE $%‘ER§ SUNgL KUMAR $§NHA, J. Saraswaii, Wd/b Chandfa Prasad. Caste~ Kanwar, Aged about 32 years Nam’ygn $ingh, Sic: Chandra Prawci, CaSte ~ Kemwan Aged aboui 11 year$5 Mina? i§1mugh guardian moiher $arag'waii, Waife Chanrira Pra3ac€ {H‘xnii Sing?!) Sm Chandra Prasad‘ Came - Kanwar, Aged about 8 yeam, Minor thmugh guaniign moihei’ $ara3wati, Wd/e Charwdra Praaad Udaymm, S/G .J‘agatram, Caste Kanwar, Aged abcut 1’2 yaar$ Phulaso, WM“: Udayram, Caste ~- Kanwar, Agaj abaut 67’ years AH are R/‘a Viiiage $ayar, P$ Lakhanpur, Digit 3urguj'a (CG) ‘ir‘EESwS? Kamlakant Singh, Sm Guiab Singh, aged ahout 24 years, RIO Kedma, PS Lakhanwur, TerhsJ? Ambikapur, Distt Surgujzr {CG} (Driver) Jagannath, S/a Basjrt Singh; aggd abeui 62 years, Rio Udaypur, PS rLakhanpur, TahSil Ambikgpur, Bist’c Surguja (CG) (Owner) United Limited, lnd§a rhrough msuranoe Branch Cowpa’ry Mariizggér, Branch Qffice Near Rem Mandir, Ambikapur Post/PS 8: Tahsil Ambikapur, Digrr Surguja (CG) {rnsurerj Wigs. §ppea§ waiw m? 2%5 (J1 Misce§§aneou5 Appeai under Sectéon 1?3 0f Matar Vehécies Act Preseni : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, caunsei for the appellants. Shri Shashi Bhushan, counsel far fespgndent No.2. Shri HB Agrawai, Senior Counse! wiih Ms Meera Jaiswai, counsel for respondeni 3. aRDER mm March. 2M1} T‘me foliowing order of the Caurt was passed by Rejeev Gupm. SJ. This is daimants’ appeai for enhancement of the compensaticn awarded by the 4t“ Additiona! Motar Accident Ciaims; Tribunal}, Surajpur, distncn Surguja (fonshort ‘the Tribunai’) Vide award dated 27.1 1 .2004, passed in ,Ciaim Case No.26/2004. 2) As againei the oempeneai'ion 0f Rs.12,U0,000/-, Giaimecé' by the appeiiante/ciaimanie, unfertunate widew, mine? chiidren and parené‘s of deceased Chandra Prasaci by fiiing a ciaim petition under Sectien 166 0f the Morer Vehicies Aci, fer hie death in the mete r accideni en D7.04.20{33, the Tribunei awarded a totai sum 0f Ream ,5€}Q/- ae ccmpeneation to the Ciaimants aieng with interee’r' @ 6% per annum fmm “{he tiate of the filing of the ciaim peiition till the date 0t ectuei payment. 3) The Tribunat 0h. a dose ecruttny Gt the entite evidenee led befere it hetd that deceased Chandra Prasad died 0n account ofthe injuriee euetained by htm in the meter accident 0n 07.04.2003; the I' \ \ \ fx ' \ accidwi occurred due to ra$h am negiigent timing 9f the driver 3f the offending vehécie Jeep bearing registretion N0.CG—15 ZD/O783; a3 the above offending vehieie Jeep OH the date of the accident was insured with the United india Insurance Company Lirmted, and ihe irxsurance Compaey could not esmblieh any breach cf the pohey conditions, khe Ensurance Compeny was Iiabie to pay (the bompehsation to the claimants. 4) AS the reepondents have not fited any appeat agatnet the award, the above ftndings fecomeo‘ by the Tnbunat have now 4. ‘ i 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.’t,5GO/- per month and Rs.18,00Q/- per annum. By deducttng 1/3” at Re? 8,DOQ/~ towards the perscnat expenees Gf the deceased, the ctaimanta‘ dependency was aeseese‘dxat Rs.12,000l~ per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Re.12.GGOp with the multlplier of 16, the campensatioh was Nerked gut te Rel ,92,0GS/w. By awarding further rum at Re.9,500la under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a tetal sum of Ream ,SOQI- ae sempensatlon to the claimante for the deeth of deceased Chandra Praead in the motor accident The Tribuna‘. further directed payment of interest on the above amount of Compensation of Rs.2,0’§,508/~ @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitien tili the date of actoai payment. ‘ 6) Shrt Aehok Kumar Shukia and Shri Atanu Qhosh, learned cotmeei for the appetian‘ts submitted that the Tribunal hae erred i not accepting the otaimants’ evidence about the inoome or“ he attatneo finatity. x x n decea$ed and in assessing his income at RS1 ,500l- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,01 ,500/— aniy. 7) ' Shri HB Agrawai and Ms Meera Jaiswai, iearneci counsei for respondent No.3 the United indie insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that’the compensation of Rs.2,01,500/— awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present 08188. 8) Shri Shashi Bhushan, iearned counsei for respondent No.2, the owner of the Jeep also supported the award. €a) Though the oiaimants pieaded that deceased Chandra Prasad used to earn Rs.7,000/— per month as Carpenter and from « ouitivation, the evidence ied by the oiaimants before the tribunal was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any i ” fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the clatmants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/— per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum is somewhat on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Chandra Prasad was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that the Tribunai ought to have assessed his income at 'Rs.2,0DOf— per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Ps.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum. // // ///I/I r/ 12) By deciucfing the usuai 1/3” of Rs.24,000J— toward$ the persona expenses of the deceased, the claimants‘ dependency .ie aesessed at Rs.16,000/- ‘per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency 0f Rs.16,00D/— with the multipiier of 16, the Campensation werks out to Rs‘2‘56,QQG/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards €uneral expenses; Rs‘5,000f- for loss of estate; and Rst5,00D/— for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive e tetei Sum of R5271 ,OOO/- as compensatien for the death or" deceased Chahdza Prasad in the meter accident. 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View t0 avcid any pcssibie dispute between the parties about the period fer which the ciaimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced x *X amount of ccmpensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. i4) Cdnsidering ail the relevant aspects of the matter, inciuding the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company atone is not to be blamed tor the entire detay in the matter, we quantity the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.69,500/— at RS.6,500i-. 15) Forthe foregoing‘reasonsdhe appealfiied bythe appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed tn part The compensation of Rs.2,01,500/— awarded .by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71 ,ODO/ewith further quantified amount of interest F\ \ I A ‘: { \\ ¢é 0f R$.6,500f~ on the enhanced amount of compensation of R$.69,500/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the United tndia insurance Company’ Limited is granted‘three manths’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.76,000/— (R$.69,500/— towards enhanced amount at compematicn + Rs.6,500/- towards quantified amount ottnterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.69,500/—) before the concerning Ciaime Tribunal. t7) No order as to coete. Sunil Kumar Sinha / Sdl- . .. sci/— ‘ " i a" Judgemw e i Chief Justice ii‘ i_J"