HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM:' APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS .. u\ HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MA. N0. 928/20G4 1. Indu Sahu wd.’o. Umesh Sahu aged about 23 years, Prins Kumar Sahu S/o. Late Umesh Sahu, aged about 3 years. Harsh Kumar Siot'Late Umesh Sahu, aged about 10 months. Yashwant Sahu S/o. Sawant Sahu aged about 55 years. Smt. ’Sahoudra Sahu @ Sushila W/o. Yashwant Sahu aged about 54 years. Appellant no. 2 & 3 are minor through natural guardian mother lndu Sahu Wd/o. Umesh Sahu. All r/o. Rudri Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus Bhagwan Prasad Sharma S/o. Nand Kishorer Sharma R/o Village Banbarah Thana Nandini Distt. Durg (so) S. Kamal Singh S/o. Chait Slngh R/o. Santrabadi durg Tahsil & Distt. Durg' (C.G. New India Insurance Company Ltd. G.E. Road Power House Bhllai Distt...‘ Durg (C_.G.) PPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ‘ ACT. 1988 ) A to Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, learned cnunsel for the appellants. Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for respondent No.1. . None for respondent No.2. Shrl Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shrl Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ lnsurance Company. ORDER (1 1‘“ December, 2008) ‘The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancemen of the t compensation awarded by the AdditionallMember Motor Accident i Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short “the Tribunal") vide award dated 07—D4~2004, passed in Claim Case No. 01/2003. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Umesh Sahu claimed compensation of Rs.23,65,000/— by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31-05-2003, when the motorcycle on which he was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.0? ZC 1107, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself, The claimants further pleaded that deceased Umesh Sahu who was aged about 26 years used to earn Rs.4,500/— per month from his Auto Center. .-\ v 3 x I x ‘ u L v 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Jeep did not contest the claim and were proceededvex parte Eefore the Tribunal. 44 The Insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the ciaimants on the plea that the Jeep was being plied in breach of the policy aconditions and the driver of the Jeep was not hoiding a valid driving licence. 5‘: The claimants examined AW1 lndu Sahu in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Umesh Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31-05—2003; the accident occurred due'to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep; as the offending vehicle Jeep on. the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,080/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.6DO/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1,480/— per month and Rs.17,760/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of l l l l l r wwnww:sewage}; L Rs.17,760f— with the multipiier of 9, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,59,840f—. By awarding further sum of Rs.1 0,000/— under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs‘1 ,69,840/— as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Umesh Sahu in the mother accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount ’ t a of compensation of Rs.1 ,69,840I— @ 6% per annum from the date i l of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8:. Shri ‘Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence‘about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,080l— per month onty; in selecting the lower multiplier of 9; and in awarding low compensation of RS1 ,69,840/- only. 9. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3! the New lndia insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,69,840/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the driver of the offendingdrehicle Jeep also supported the award. 11. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased *‘Umesh Sahu died on account of the iniuries sustained by him in ' i 1 \ i ‘ ‘ i \ l i l ‘ t i ‘ § i i > the motor accident on 31—05—2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offendimg vehicle Jeep; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this-appeal and ev'en otherwise there is sufficient evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any Shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf. 12. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Umesh Sahu used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month from his Auto Center, but the evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. 13. Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,080f- per month is certainly‘on the lower side. The Tribunal while discarding the evidence of the ctaimants about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second i Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. The notional income of Rs.15,000f— was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act V in the year 1994. If we take into consideration the increase in the ‘ ptices of the essential commodities and the cost of living during ‘ the period between 1994 and 2003, the year of the accident in the present case, the notional income of Rs.15,000/— prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose to l recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15f By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal Eexpenses of the deceaSed, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 16. Considering that deceased Umesh Sahu was aged about; l 26 years and his widow oiaimant No.1 lndu Sahu Was 23 years of age on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 would be appropriate in the present case. 17. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/— with t multiplier of 14, the compensation works out to R‘s.2,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for i loss of estate, the ciaimants become entitled to receive a total i sum of Rs.2,95,000/— as compensatiOn for the death of deceased Umesh Sahu in the motor accident. 18. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View 1 to avoid any possibe dispute between the parties about the i i X pe%iod for which the ciaimants are entitied to get interest on the eniganced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this apibeai itseif. 19 Considering aii the reievant factors including the deiay in th . disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the faotjghat the insurance Company alone is not to be biamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,160/— at Rs.24,840/—. 20.} For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeiiants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiicéwed in part. The compensation of Rs.1 ,69,84OJ~ awarded by l the‘ Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.2,95,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.24,840/~ on the enhanced amount of l corinpensation. i 21% Respondent No.3 The New lndia insurance Company, a Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1 ,50,000/— {Rst 25,1601— towards the enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.24,840/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation} before the concerning Ciaims Tribunai‘k 22. No order as to costs. Sdl- ' Chief Justice: L Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge “a, _. “g” . ir~ v—i/ \M V