HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEVISEON BENCH Ccram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & ‘ HON’BLE SHR! R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeai No. 765 of 2034 Anpéllants ’i . Suresh K'umar aged about 32 years; Claimants S/o. Sheetal Das Shajeeda. Smt. Pari Bai, aged about 58 years, W/o. Sheetal Das Shajeeda. (Appellant No.1 being mentaiiy retired is represented by his mother Legai- Guardian / Next friend the appellant 30th the resident of New Rajendra Nagar, House No. 369, Pelice Station Civil Line, City Ra'ipur, Tah. & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Tameshwar Sahu, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Kejuram Sahu, R/o Village Mansuli, Police Station Patan, District - Durg (C.G.) Present Rio Caat Carrier, Telibandha, Raipur, Prop. 8hri Rajender Singh Tah. & Dist. — Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle bearing registration NO. C.G.-G4/ZC ~ 0748) Shri Raiendra Singh, S/o Jeevan Singh Resident of — Near Gurudwara, Telibandha, Raipur, Poiice Statien - CivilLine, Raipur (C.G.) “tOwner of vehicie bearing registration No. C.G.-G4/ZC — 0748) The New India Assurance Company ’ Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Jail Road, Kuthery Chowk, City- Raipur, Tahsil & District — Raipur (C.G.) Resnondents 1 . Non-claimants 2‘ Gurunanak 3. - “lT Sh Dharmesh Shastava ‘earned counsel for the appeliant sn o 2 None for reondents N 1 & Sh Sud A e iearned coin! for rmde No.3. ORDER (7m July, zoos) foliowing order o the Court was passed by The f Rajev Gupta, C.J. : Thi is olarmant’s apeal for enhancement of. the' compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'th Tribunal’)vvid award dated 27032004, passed in Claim Case No.12‘1 /2002. ) The appeilants claimants; unfortunate brother and mother of deceased Vinod Shajeedag claimed compenstion o Rs.19,50,000l— by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.03202, when his Her Honda motorcycle bearin registration No. MP. MD 8008 was dashed by the offending Vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. O4 ZC 0M8, resulting in his inantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Vinod Shajeeda was aged about 24 years and used to earn Rs.3,8002‘- per month as Marketing Agent of Rajesh Enterprises, D.S. Collections‘& RD. Sons. 3) The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Memo of Aggeal under Section 173 of the Mater Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: n rlv ‘ s ri hur g w! Se eapm e e p e e 2 / a f 0 o g 23 st 4) ‘ The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck contested the ciairh and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claiménts on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Truck was not holdjing a valid driving licence and the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. l 5) l The claimants examined AW1 Udendra Kumar Soni and AW2 Eari Bai in support of their claim, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 6) Tlfe Tribunal‘on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Vinod Shajeeda died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.03.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at a Rs.5D/— per day, Rs.1 ,500/- per month and Rs.18,000f- per annum. By deducting 1/3'” of Rs.18,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.96,000I-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,03,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vinod Shajeeda in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1%,03,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of the award tilf the date3of actual payment. 8) t Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the l 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.18,000/- per annum only; in selecting the tower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low‘ compensation of Rs.1 ,03,DOO/— only.“ 9) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned 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.1,03,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Vinod Shajeeda died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.03.2002; the driver of the offending vehicle a Truck was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants are based on the evidence and material available on record. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. Werxvtherefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. r 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Vinod Shajeeda used to earn Rs.3,800/- per month by working as‘Marketing Agent of Rajesh Enterprises, D.S. Collections & RD. Sons, but the evience led in that behakf was not of cHnching nature. We, d threfore, do not find any faul in the approach of the Tribdna! n e t i diecarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the ec deased. 12) evertheies, the income of the deceased assessed by the Trbunal at Rs.50/- per da; Rs.1 ,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- i y I puannum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants’ evidence about the inco of the deceased ought to have assessed his incoe on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Shedule unde Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. c r 14) Th notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was e prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present ce, wherein deceased Vinod Shajeeda lost his life, took place in as the year 2002. lf he increas in the prices of the essential t e o m a we he comodities nd the cost of living beten the year 1994 and t year 2002, the year of accidet in the present case, are taken into n csideration, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the on e S Scond chedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to R.3000/- in the yea\2002. We, therefore, propose to s0, t, recompute'the compensation taking th income of he deceased - e t at Rs.30,000/— per annum. 1 As decead Vinod Shajeeda was un-mari’ied on the ate of 5) se d the accident and after his marriage, his contribution to the mother " Ns er me m and ibrother would have been reduced substantially, we deem it ‘ propér to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards” his personal expenses. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is asseissed at Rs.1 5,000f— per annum. 16) As claimant No. 2 Smt. Pari Bai, the mother of deceased t Vindd Shajeeda was shown to be 58 years of age in the claim petitionAhe multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with as the Second Schedule under Section 163-A prescribes the multiplier of 8 for the age group between 55 year‘s to 60 years. 17) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/— with the multiplier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000I-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5=000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. 'The claimants, thus; become entitled to‘receive a total sum of Rs.1 ,30,00D/— as compensation for the death of Vinod Shajeeda in the motor accident on 15-03-2002. 18) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a View a to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 19) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Vinod r Shajeeda lost his life took place in the year 2002; the ciaim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2002; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2004; and the present ~v-\ I“ LM appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellants in the yeai 2004; and the same is being finaliy decided in the year 2009. Considering aii the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the l enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27,000/— at Rs.3,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal med by the appellants/v claimants for enhancement of the compensation is . allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,03;000i- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.1,30;OOO/- with further quantified r amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.27;000/-. 21) Respondent No.3 The New lndia lnsurance Company Limited, is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.27,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/— towards the quantified amount of a interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of»Rs.27,000l-) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. // 22) ‘ No order as to costs. //I(/ 7 j Sdl- Chief : ‘\ V ‘gdl— .L. Jha‘wva‘. ‘,: Justicei Jué‘ée /’~ //’_ // nimmi