H ‘ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM:‘ HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RL JHANWAR i i Misc. Appeal No. o9 0f boos - l Mamram Adltya S/o Madhoram Adltya Aged about 45 years Ku Ghasnln Adltya Aged about 18 years E Ku Mahettln Adltya Aged about 16 years Both are D/o {Mamram Adltya Minor Appellant No 3 through her am A - father Appellant No1 Manrr dltya ' \ APPELLANTS 2 II are Permari’eint R/o Village A & Post Krkrrda Tahsrl Shaktl PS Jaualpur Drstrlct JanJgIr-Champa (CG) . P resent Address Road, Lal Khadan, District’Bilaspur (CtG.) Mahmand Tahsil & Versus Parsuram Sharma /o Bharatram Sharma (Drrver) Aged about 45 years R/o 15 Block Korba Drstrrct Korba (C.G.) ‘ Anish Sharma, S/o Mithilesh Sharma, (Vehicle Owner) Aged. about _ years,‘R/o Transport Nagar, 15 Block, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited Korba District Korba (C G ) (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) RESPEONDENTS l Appearance M r Ravrsh Verma Counsel for the appellants Mr Raj Awasthl Counsel for respondent No 3 None for respondents 1 & 2 1 S 2 MA. No.09 of 2006 JUDGMENT ( 25.11.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ‘\l'he appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.4/2005, by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) on 4m of a October 2005. The appellants/claimants are the husband and daughters of ‘ deceased Khik Bai, who died in the motor accident on 10.09.2004. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- on account of death of deceased. Khik Bai in the motors accident. They pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.900/— per week by selling vegetables. a Respondents No.1 & 2 denied the claim filed by the “w appellants/claimants by filing their written statements on various grounds. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company made a formal denial. They also took the plea of breach of policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the respondents were joint and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants. The Tribunal on due scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was earning RsTQOOI— per week by selling vegetables. The Tribunal, however, on its own. held that AO the deceased was a labour, therefore, she may be getting Rs.60/— per 3 M.A. No.09 of 2006 day. Treating only 25 days as working days in a month, the Tribunai held the monthly‘ income of the deceased as Rs.1500/—. The annual income of the deceased was heid to be Rs.18000/-. After deducting 1/3” towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the annuai dependency was \ worked out to Rs.12000/-. The Tribunai applied the multipiier of 12 to the annuai dependency of Rs.12000/- and worked out the amount of compensation as Rs.1,44,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs.23,000/— under other heads, the Tribunai,awarded total compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- to the appellants/ciaimants on account of death of deceased Khik Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal aiso awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its reaiization. Mr. Ravish Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argues that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed. He prays for proper assessment of the income of the deceased and for suitable enhancement of the amount of compensation. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf 'of the insurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning, Rs.900/— per week by selling vegetables, but the evidence in this regard was not of clinching nature. The Tribunal applied the simple principle of the deceased being a labour and on its own, has held that the deceased was earning Rs.60/- per day, Rs.1500/— per month and Rs.18000I- per / annum. ’9 x 4 M.A. No.09 of 2006 On due consideration, we are not satisfied with the above manner of caiculation of‘the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal. The calculation of the Tribunal is based on assumption and the same cannot be sustained. When the evidence in relation to the monthiy income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, the Tribunal ought to have resorted to the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act and it ought to have calculated the income of the deceased purely on the basis of notional income prescribed under the SecondSchedule of 163(A) of the Act. The notional income of Rs.15,000/— was prescribed in the year 1994. Considering the rise of prices of the essential commodities‘and the cost of living in between the year 1994 and the year 2004, we take the notional income of Rs.15,000/— as Rs.36,000/— in the year 2004. Therefore, we propose to recompute the compensation by holding the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36000/-. By deducting 1/3“ from the above annual income of the‘ deceased i.e. Rs.12,000/—, the annual dependency is worked out to Rs.24,000/—. Since the deceased - was the wife of appellant No1 and appellants No.2 & 3 were aged about 18 and 16 years and the deceased was aged about 50 years, as per finding of the Claims Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier of 10 in this case. By applying the multiplier of 10 to the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, the compensation is worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation is worked out to Rs.2,50,000/-, which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as compensation on account of death of deceased Khik Bai in the motor accident on 10.09.2004. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of /Rs.1,67,000/-. .Bg' deducting this amount from Rs.2,50,000/.—, the \ ‘4 §\ shyna 5 M.A. No.09 of 2006 difference comes to Rs.83,000/— which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation. To avoid further complications and Iooking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimants’ appeal and that the x insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.7,000/- in this matter. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.90,000/- more (Rs.83000/— as the enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7000/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which the appellants/claimants shall receive from the insurance Company. Respondent No.3, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount with the concerned ' Claims Tribunal, failing which, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date commencing after completion of period of 3 months till its realization. ,, , There shall be no order as to costs. ' sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/— Judge R.L. Jhanwar Judge