\^ .-...-...- ..^^.-..^.. ^.^- - „...__- ^.. _ c^^ 'IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT ^ BILASPUR MISC. APPEALrC)N67' OF 2009 J^c MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNbER SECTION 173. MOTOR VEHICLES ACY. 1988 A&pellants ^^' ......•^1:%; ^;'^.:^^0 ^l. Laxman Khare, S/o bayaldas Khare, aged about 55 years ^2. Smt. Laxmi Bai, W/o Laxman Khare Aged 45 years ^, i" Respondents Shankar Khare, S/o Laxman Khare, aged 17 years ^4. Ky. Rajeshwari, &/o Laxman Khare, aged 15 years beepika, &/o Laxman Khare, aged 13 years (Appellant no. 3,4 & 5 are minor, represented by the Guardian at litem Mother Smt. Laxmi Bai (Appellant No.2) (All R/o Baikunthdham, near Yug Nirman School, Camp-2, Bhilai, Tahsil and bistt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Soni Sin9h, S/o Singara Sin9h, aged about 36 years, R/o Camp-1, Thana Chhaoni, Near Patel bairy, Oistt. Durg (CG) 2. Rajendra Singh Arora, S/o Subhan Singh Arora, aged 54 years, R/o MIG 10, Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai. bi'stt.Durg (CG) 1 Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Nandini Road, Bhifai, Dist. Durg (CG) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Nawal Kishore Aarawal and Hon'ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar, JJ. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1615 of 2009 Appellants : Laxman Khare and others. Respondents Non-applicants Versus Soni Singh and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for the appellants. r ORAL ORDER (Passedon 10.02.2010) The following oral judgment of the Court was delivered by N.K.Agrawal, J. t.^ Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the ground mentioned therein, we are satisfied that the appellants succeeded in showing the cause for delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 30.07.2009 passed in claim case No. 184/2008 by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents. Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (henceforth (the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,52,510/- as compensation has been awarded in favour ofthe appellants for the death of the deceased Jagdish Khare i.e. son of the appellants No.1 & 2 and brother of the appellants No.3 to 5, in the accident. 6. Facts briefly stated are as under: ^fSS 3 -^ On 17.02.2007, the deceased met with an accident by Mini Bus bearing registration No.CG-06-ZA/0108 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 23.02.2007. 7. The appellants/claimants claimed Rs.11,35,0007- as compensation against the respondents by filing the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ' the Act') for the death of the deceased in the said accident. 8. The Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led; on appreciation of the material placed on record and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties hold that respondent No.1 is responsible for the said accident; assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the annual dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum; applied multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs.2,24,000/- (this amount appears to be incorrect as it will be Rs.2,40,000/-) as compensation on account of loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.28,508/- towards other heads and thus awarded total sum of Rs.2,52,508/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum on the date of application. 9. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and applied wrong multiplier of 10, and therefore, the amount of award deserves to be suitably enhanced. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and record of the Court below. 11. The appellants' witness A.W.1 Laxman has deposed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,900/- per month at the time of accident. He has further deposed that in addition to the said amount the deceased used to earn Rs.5000/- per month from other private jobs but in cross-examination he has admitted that he has not produced any document proving such income of the deceased from such other sources. In paragraph 7 of his testimony, A.W.2 Giridharilal Yadav has deposed that the deceased used to earn between Rs.100/- / Rs.150/- per day according to his engagement in the work. 12. -After considering the evidence adduced by the appellants, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income ^ \ - ^r - ^ ofthe deceased as Rs.3,000/-; rightly applied the multiplier of 10 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. However, as pointed out in paragraph 8 ofthis order, there is calculation mistake in the order of the Tribunal wherein instead Rs.2,40,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- has been mentioned. Therefore, although in our considered opinion the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and also rightly applied multiplier of 10, but looking to the calculation mistake in the award of the Tribunal, the award deserves to be enhanced by Rs.16,000/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. By correcting the calculation mistake, it is ordered that the appellants are entitled to further sum of Rs.16,000/- inaddition to the amount of Rs.2,52,510/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents are granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge :^