W"; AA H HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-i AT BILASPUR DlVl$l0N BENCH coRAM: Hom’BLE sHRn RAJEEV GUPTA c J & , HON’LE SHR: RANGNATH CHANééAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 527 of 2W4 1 Tuniram Mandavi Sio late Pithadi, , aged about45years 2 Smt. Bagjo Bai, W/o Shri Tuniram, aged about 45 years Both R/o Village Chote Donaar PS Fara3gaon, Thesil Kondagao‘h, iDistt Bastar(CG) ii-xgpeiiants cymw‘.‘ mnnam: t» Va VERSUS Respondents Non-afjpiicaiits Om Prakash Sompoure, Slo Shri Chamruram, aged about 37 years, Rio Near Bus Stand, Village ‘L'anjoda, Tehsil Kondagaon, Dist Bastar(CG) Smt Swarajranl Gulral; W/o Shri SP Gujral, Clo Raipua’ Madras Raad Lines, Rmg Road No.2, Bhanpuri, Ralpur(CG) ¢ The Oriental Insurance Comnany Ltd., Raipur Through Brench Jagdalpur Distt Bastar (CG) Mlsc. Apyeal under Section 173 0f Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shrl Prafuil‘gharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Avinash Mlshra, counsel for respondent No.3. \ // ORDER lat“ $eptemher, 29m) \ \ \ The fouowing order of the Court was passed by G Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Mohanial Mandavi are the appeuants before us in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdaipur (for short ‘the Trib‘unai’) vide award dated 10.02.2004, passed in claim case No.1 39f2002. 2) As againstthe compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Mohanlat Mandavi in the motor accident on 04.11.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of RS1 ,12,500/— 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 the ciaimants’ son Mohanlal Mandavi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.11.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drtving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.P.23—D!0566; as the above offending vehicie Truck on the date of thé‘accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. :\j 4) As the respondents have not filed any appea! against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai ha\7e now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs,15§OOO/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Meter Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3’d of Rs.15,DOO/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency Was assessed at Rs.10,000f— per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1D,GOO/- with the muitipiier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,12,500/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of their son Mohanial Mandavi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rst ,12,500/- @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition tili the date of actuai payment. 6) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, teamed 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 Rsi15,000/- per annum oniy; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1 ,1 2,5GOI- only. t 7) Shri Avinash Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 ‘ the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand : Rs.‘i,12,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ‘8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son deceased Mohanlat Mandavii used to earn Rs.2,500/— per month as ‘ Conductor on the Truck, the evidence led in that behalf was not of ciinching nature. Even the employer of the Truck was not examined by the claimants to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.2,500/— per month. 9) ln 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. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 5,000/— per annum in the year 2000 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) As the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the unfortunate accident in the present case wherein the claimants’ son Mohanlai Mandavi lost his life took place in the year 2000, we propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/— per annum which we have assessed in other cases of the year 2000. supported the award and contended that the compensation of $ ‘.\,A‘ XJ \‘7\ 12) As deceased MohanialMandaviwas unmarried nthe ate of the accident, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of Rs.22,000l— towards the persona! expenses of the deceased in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammad Jameei and another reported in (2909) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. The ctaimants’ dependency, therefore; is assessed at Rs.1 2,000J- per annum. 13) As the claimants are parents of the deceased, the muttiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2W3) 8 SCC-T31, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 14) By multiplying the annuat dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the muttipiier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,2G,OOOI-. The claimants are further entitled to receive a sum of Rs‘5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate. The claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1 ,30,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Mohanlal Mandavi in the motor accident. 15) The ciaimants arefurther awarded a quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,500/~ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ?,500/-. E 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai file appeuants/ claimants for enhancement of the oompensatfon is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,12,5OD/- awarded by the Tribune! is enhanced to Rs.1 ,30,000l— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2‘5G0/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.17,500/—. 17}. - Respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20',000/— (Rs.17,500l— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,5OD/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.17,500/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. of Sdl- l l il' Sdl- i R.N.Chandrakar Chief Justice ' i Judge