A? 1i R ;:‘ “’v‘v 00?“ 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ON’ SHR RAE UPA, .J ‘ HO I UMAR H, J Aaa alias Aar S/o u, ge abu yes Sadara, /o asharam ali swaram, Aed abou 5 ars, th ar o i Pn, P.Sanr, Distric Jajgil Chpa. Versus aran Si al, a g e yer Sarr Si il aiyap Koa, . . ora, Dstrict orba (C.. (Driver) Prakas in dal, / r Sing, o iaa, Kc, Poice St 8 il b ic a (Chhattisah) (Owner) i ln’i C ., City ra Office, DK. lex, T.P Nagar Korba Dstri or hhattisarh 1 . lant r ' N el for th aelln N o rndents o 1 n ugh serve Pres‘ent : Shn Jeet Patel learned couns e ppats i one fr espo N ad 2 tho d Shn A K Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No3 . O R D E R (015' September; 2009) . w / / -/ i 9 2% \ ‘ Comm : HBLE I JEV GT 6. & N’BLE SHRI $UNL K SINA . Misc. Appeal No. 1262 bf 2004 shram swam, Chuta Ad ot 55 ar. Appellants Cimas ho W A as A g t O ye Bo e Rl Vllage —edri .Jjgi t n} am l *‘RESPOND’ENTSI Chjeet ngh ias Chnne l Sinh, Agd about 27 as, ,sxo d‘a ngh Gl, Rlo Amrara, rb P.S’ 8 Tehsil —Kb i K .G) ,‘V h‘ Sgh Ba So Sadar h R/ Amraypra rba l ation : Tehs -Kora, Distrt Korb gr. The Orental stranoe o. Lid Bnch .om ~ Comp . , , ict Kba (Cg) Memorandum of Aggal under Section 173 of ttie ' Motor Vehicles Act The foilo‘wing” order of the Court was passed ‘by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. : enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Janjgir (for short ‘the. Tribunal’) vide award, dated 05 10 2004 passed in Claim Case No 40/2003 2) As against the compensation of Rs 43 93 000l— claimed by .the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased evprasad, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor VezhicleséAct fOr his death in the motor accident on 07 02 2003 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs1 15 QOOI- as compensation long wrth interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition tr ll the date of actual payment 3) Shri Jeet Patel, learned counsel for the appellants submitted V that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower mUltipiier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,15,000l- only. 4), Shri A.K Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No3 - The Oriental insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs1 150001— awarded by the Tribunal rs just. and proper ompensation rn the facts and Circumstances of the present case 5) True the claimants pleaded that their son Devprasad used ft o to earn Rs 72 OOOI- per annum as Hamal on the Truck but the -Thie is claimants’ appeal for l D a " c evidence ted in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased. 6) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, requires reconsideration. 7) The notional income of Rs.15,000/— per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein the claimants’ son Devprasad lost his life, took place in the year 2003. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2003, the year of accident in the present case, aretaken into consideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000l- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000l~ in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 8) Considering that deceased Devprasad was un-married on the date of the accident and after his marriage, his contribution te‘ the parents would have been reduced substantially, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is ' assessed at Rs.15,000l— per annum. i xx A 9) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannat be found fault with considering that the claimants were parents of deceased Devprasad and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman [yer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed to. 10) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,0001— with the multiplier of 1-0‘ the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,0DOI-. The claimants are further entitled to receive. Rs.5,0DO/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Devprasad in the motor accident. 1‘1) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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. 12) The accident in , the present case, wherein deceased Devprasad lost his life took place in the year 2003; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2003; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2004; and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the year 2004; and the appeal is being finally a decided in the year 2009. Considering an the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the ciaim 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 on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/— at Rs.6,000/-. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,15,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1 ,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000l- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 14) Respondent No3 The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.51,GOO/- (Rs.45,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. SUBBU l l / ,{l l‘i l l l‘. s l -. ,I’ ' 15) No order as to costs. _ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sdl- l l/./- Judge Chief Justice