HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc.Appeal ( C l No. 1121/2008 SB: Hoa'ble Sluri Justice R.L. Jhaawar Siut. Devki Bai Nishad aad others RESPONDEHTS Versus Dayaaand Adil and. anofher ORDER Post for order on i A .4.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^i-ii'*'}8^ /'/^^ &- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPOR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. Mjsc. Appeal (Cl Wo.1121 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT1S 1 Sint. Devki Bai Nishad, wd/o Sautosh Kumar Nishad, aged about 32 years 2 Miaor Rakesh Kum.ar Nishad, son of Late Saatosh Kuinar Nishad, aged about 16 years 3 Minor Roshan Kuiaar Nishad, son of Late Saatosh Kumar Nishad, aged about 12 years 4 Miuor Rajendra Kumar Nishad, son of Late Santosh Kumar Nishad, aged about 9 years Miaor AppeUant No. 2, 3 aad 4 guardian mofher Devki Bai Nishad, wd/o Late Santosh Kumar Nishad, AU R/o village and Post Kesda, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Dayaaaad Adil son of Shri DUeshwar AdU, aged about 35 years, R/o viUage aud post Bodtara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG) (Owner of Tractor N0. CG 04, DA 694) 2 Ifco Tokiyo Genersd Insurauce Shrimaa Divisional Manger, ITGI, R/o Third Floor, Shop No.345-347 Lal Gaaga Shoping Mal GE Road, Raipur(CG) (Insurer of tractor No. CG 04 DA694) Lunitation 01-02-2007 to 31-01-2008) K~"r ,y^' ^•-........^ ^ \,ssy! ^^•SSS^" MISCELLAKEOyS APPEAL UNDBR SECTIOH 173_QPTHE MQTOR VEHICLES A^^ 1988 Appearance: Shri Ashok Soni, counsel for the appeBants. Noae for respondent No.l. Shri Vifcrant Siagh, counsel for respoudent No.2. ORDBR ( ^.4.2011) R-L.Jhanwar, J The appellants/claiiaants bave ffled fhis appeal under Section 173 of fhe Motor Vebicles Act for enhariceinent of fhe auiount ofcoinpensation, awarded in Claiin Case No. 26/2007 by fhe Additional Motor Accident Clauas Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG) (for short 'the Tribunal^ vide award dated 6.5.2008. 2. As agauist tfae corupensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimauts, unfortunate widow aad sons of the deceased - Saatosh Kuinar by fiting a claun petition under Section 163 A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in fhe niotor accident on 8.10.2007, ttie Tribunal awarded a total suni of Rs.3,37,900/- as compensation to fhe claunaats along with iaterest @ 9% p.a. froni the date of filing of fhe claun petition tiiU fbe date of actual payinent. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased- Sautosh Kumar Nishad died iu the inotor accident on 8.10.2007, while he was driving Tractor No. CG 04/DA 694 (fhe offendiag vehicle); as the offending vehicle Tractor on fhe date of accident was iasured with fhe Ifco Tokiyo General Insurauce Compaay Limited, ttie Insurauce Compauy was Uable to pay fhe conipensatiou to fhe claimaats. r ^. 4. As fhe respondents have not filed an.y appeal against the award, ttie above findm.gs recorded by fb.e Tribunal have now attauied finaUty. 5. The Tribunal assessed the notional iucoiae ofthe deceased at Rs.1950/- per nionfh. aud after deductmg l/3rd towards personal expeases, dependency of fhe clauaaiits was assessed at Rs.1350/- p.iu. Thus, the claiiuiaats depeadency was worked out to Rs.16,200/- per year aad after usiag niultiplier of 17, conipensation was worked out to Rs.2,75,400/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.62,500/- under other heads. In fhis way, the Tribimal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,37,900/-. The Tribunal also awarded iuterest @ 9% per annuni on the above amount of conipensation. 6. Shri Ashok Soni, leamed counsel for fhe appeBaats subiuitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at lower side as Rs.1950/- p.m. The Tnbuiial ought to have taken the notional iacome as prescribed in ftie llnd Schedule i.e. Rs.36,000/- per aanum and thereafter, after deductuig l/3Td towards personal expenses, miiltiplier of 17 would have been applied. 7. On fhe ofher hand, leamed couusel for respondent No, 2/ Ifco Tokiyo General Insuiance Coinpaay Limited supported fhe award and contended that fhe coinpensation of Rs.3,37,900/- awarded by fhe Tribunal is just and proper coiapensation ia the facts and circuinstauces ofthe present case. 8. I have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties at length and perused fhe record of fhe clauu case. 9. Since the evidence regardiag fhe uicouie of the deceased was not satisfactory, therefore, ttie Tribunal ought to have taken f2? fhe notional uicoine aad on fhe basis of notional uicome, it should have awarded the coinpensation, but ia this case, the Tribunal has erred in not taking fiie notionat iucoiue of the deceased. The notional incouie was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per aiuium. in the year 1994 as prescribed iu IInd Schedule of ftie Motor Vehicles Act. Looking to fhe increased prices of the essential coinmodities aud fhe cost of livuig ia between fhe year 1994 and fhe year 2007, and on due consideration. of the subinissions of leamed counsel for the pardes, fhis Court is of the view fhat fhe Tribuual has erred ia takiag notional incoine as Rs.1950/- p.in. Therefore, I propose to re-coinpute ftie coiiipensation by holdiug the iacoiae of fhe deceased as Rs.30,000/- per auniun. 10. By deductmg l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.30,000/-, the dependency ofthe appeUants is worked out to Rs.20,000/-. The Tribuaal, lookmg to fhe age of the deceased i.e. 33 years has rightly adopted the xaultiplier of 17. Therefore, by applyiag inultipUer of 17 to fhe annual dependency of Rs.20,000/-, the cotnpensation is worked out to Rs.3,40,000/-. By adding a furfher sum of Rs.62,500/- under ofher pemiissible heads, fhe total amount of coinpensation works out to Rs.4,02,500/-. The Tnbimal has already awarded a suni of Rs.3,37,900/-, fhe balaace of coinpensation coines to Rs.64,600/-. 11. The appeUants/claimaats, fhus, are entitled to receive a suin of Rs.64,600/ - as fhe enhanced ainouitt of coiapensation on account of deafh of fhe deceased -Santosh Kumar ia the motor accident. 12. To avoid furfher coiuplications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of fbe claiia petition as also fhe clamiants' appeal aad that fhe Insurauce Coiapaay alone canaot be blamed r -"•^ •~.^ f< for such delay. I deeia it appropriate to <iuautily fhe iuterest, whicb I quaattfy as Rs.4,400/- on fhe enhaaced amount of coinpensation ofRs.64,600/- iu this niatter. 13. The appeUaats/claimaats are entitted to receive a siun. of Rs.69,000/- inore (Rs.64,600/- as the enhanced aoiount of coinpensation aad Rs.4,400/- as fhe ainount of quantified iaterest on fhe enliaaced ainount) from. respondent No.2/lfco Toktyo Geneial Insuraace Coinpany. 14. Respondent No. 2/Ifco Tokiyo General Insuraace Coinpauy Lioiited is grauted fhree inonfhs' time for depositing the aforesaid auiount before the concemiug Claims Tribunal, failing which, fhis aniount of Rs.64,600/ - shaU cany interest at fh.e rate of 6% per annum for fh.e period couuiienciag atlter lapse of 3 ruonfhs froin today tiU its realization. 15. The appeal is atlowed to fhe extent iadicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. | Sd/^ R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge