•.:SiSB! •,-,,EB :.'•"" _^ <'"' i!«:II H ^ '-^; |;i'6 'i; "i!i. ^.:..^\ ;iii:i>laA llfi'?BP^ ^lvr',.11-' NK«E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2004 Appellants 1. Gurala Radha, w/o. Narsingh Gurala, Claimant s aged 25 years. 2. Gurala Laxmi, w/o. Dasu, aged 60 years. 3. Ku. Vimla d/o. Narsingh, 12years. 4. Manoj s/o. Narsingh, aged 11 years. 5. Ganpat s/o. Narsingh, aged 9 years. 6. Pushpa d/o. Narsingh, aged 5 years. Appellants No. 3 to 6 are minor through their legal guardian mother Gurala Radha, the natural guardian. All are by Caste Marar, resident of village Nayapara Moded, Tahsil Bhopalpatnam, Distt. Dantewada VERSUS Respondents 1 Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh, Non-apRlicants State Transport Corporation, Depot Bhadrachalam (A.P). 2 Mohammad Jafer s/o.... (Driver), A.P.S.R.T.C., Depot Bhadrachalam (A.P). Memo of appeal under Sectjon 173 of hflotor Vehicle Act Present: ShriSubhash Yadav, counsel for the appellants. Shri Preetam Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for respondent No.2 ^Ss',. '"<-w , ^ ^. Jh,-, "'tw ORDER ISt (215INovember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by N.K. Agarwal, J. 1) This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.112/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants i.e., unfortunate widow, mother and minor children of deceased Narsingh Gurala, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.02.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.99,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Narsingh Gurala died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.02.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No. AP-10-Z/3065; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum in favour of the claimants. 4) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellanfs would submit : learned Tribunal has erred in taking the tc d»l income of the deceased at Rs.25/- per day; in selecting multiplier of 15; in awarding only Rs. 9,500/- under other heads; and thus has fallen in error in awarding Rs.99,500/- only as compensation to the claimants. 5) On the other hand, Shri Preetam Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.99,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensafion in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. 6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records ofthe Tribunal induding the award impugned. 7) Claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was an agriculturist and labourer and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month and was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. As per postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. Appellant No.1 in para 1 of her statement has stated that her husband was earning Rs.70/- per day by working as labourer. The above statement stands unrebutted. Even otherwise, in the year 2002 a labourer could have earned Rs.2,000/- per month even by working as unskilled labourer. Therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.25/- per day for the purpose of computation of compensation is without any basis. In our opinion, the deceased must have been earning Rs. 2000/- per month at ^-) the time of accident. Further, the Tribunal has also fallen in error in selecting the multiplier of 15, inasmuch as the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has prescribed multiplier of 16 for the age group between 31-35 years. The Tribunal has further erred in awarding Rs.9,500/- only under the other heads. 8) In view of the above, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration fhe income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 9) After deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the daimants' dependency is assessedat Rs.16,000/- per annum. 10) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. 11) The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. 12) The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation i.e. Rs.1,71,500/- over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The appellants are awarded further sum of Rs.1,71,5000/- as compensation for the death of Narsingh Gurala in the motor accident. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,71,500/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The award impugned is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 14) The respondents are granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,71,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, before the concerning Claims Tribunal. raju 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- N-K-AganyaI Judge Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge