HON’B CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE SHRI M.M. SHRIVASTAVA, J J. Misc. AppealNo. 1272/2004 Ku. Kajal Sharma & Others ’ Vs. Mr. Santosh '@ Murlidhar Sharma & Others ORDER \ / \N ’v k W LE SHRI MANINDRA .M. SHRIVASTAVA 3 {WW/J Sd/— ' { \ Judge Post for Order _:/3/1 2/201 0 l Lif * ‘ Sd/- Slinil Kumar Sinha ,é K ' Judge For consideration M y w é/iil1/2'01o //‘“” ‘“' \ 1 l f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR EManindra Mohan Shrivastava W 2% k f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE SHRI M.M. SHRIVASTAVA, J J. Misc. AppealNo. 1272/2004 APPELLANTS 1. Ku. Kajal Sharma D/o Late. Indra Kumar Sharma, aged about 11 years. 2. Kumari Pallawi Sharma D/0« Late Indra ‘Kumar Sharma aged about 15 years. 3. Alok Sharma S/o Late Indra Kumar Sharma, aged about 17years. 4. Kumari Shweta Sharma D/o Late Indra Kumar Sharma, aged about 19 years. 5. Kumari Payal Sharma D/o Late' Indra Kumar Sharma, aged about 19 years. Kumari Rashmi Sharma Dlo Late Indra Kumar Sharma, aged about 21 years. 7. Smt. Uma Gouri Sharma W/o Late Indra Kumar Sharma, appellant No 1 to 3 are represented by Iegal guardian .mothere, ‘Uma Bai, AII are resident of Village- Near Ram Talkies, Ganj Para, Distt— Mahasamund C.G. Versus Santosh @ Murlidhar Sharma about 52 years, S/o Shambhudayal Sharma Police Station Jugatlai, Jamshedpur Jharkhand State. 2. Regional Sales Office (C.B.D,), Tata Engineering & Loco Company Limited, Through: Jayaco Auto‘ & Finance Limited, Tatibandh, Grate Eastern Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Divisional Manager, The New lndia’ Insurance Company Limited K'achahari Chowk Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. , 2 Misc. AQQeaINo. 1272/2004 Mr Dharmesh Shrlvastava and Mr C P Lahre Advocates for ‘ the appellants ‘ Following order of the Court was delivered by r Sunil Kumar Si'nha, J. The appellants/claimants have med this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No 76/2003 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accrdent Claims Tribunal Mahasamund (C G ) Vlde award dated 05 09 2004 1. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased- Indra Kumar Sharma Fled a Claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs 2 21 000 00 /- for his death in motor accrdent which took place on 08 03 2003 when his bicycle was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration no. JH 05/A-5586-C-03 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver. The deceased was aged about 53 years. He was working as a School Teacher in School Education Department. The appellants/claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 9 000/- per month. The pay slip of the deceased (Ex-P-9) duly issued by the Block Education Offcer was also produced by the appellants/claimants in their ewdence The Tribunal on ‘a close scrutiny, OF the eVIdence lead by the appellants/claimants held that the net pay of the deceased was Rs 7484/- per month However looking to the future benefts which the deceased would have got in serwce the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs 8 000/— By deducting about 1/3 from the said monthly income a”? 3 Misc. AppealNo. 1272/2004 towards personal expenses of the deceased, thedependency of the appellants/claimants was worked out to Rs. 5,334l- per month and Rs. 64,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 10 to the said dependency of Rs. 64,000/—, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 6,40,000/—. By adding a further sum of Rs. 9,500/— under other heads, the total amount of compensation was’irvorked out to Rs. 6,49,500/-. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,49,500/— as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased- Indra Kumar Sharma in motor accident on 08.03.03. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, argued that the income was not properly assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the net salary of the deceased as his income and various deductions have been done, which ought not have been done for assessment of the income of the deceased. He referred to the contents of the salary certmcate (Ex-P-9). On the other hand, 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. The appellants/claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/— per month. To substantiate their plea, they have tiled the salaryrcertiticate of the deceased as Ex-P-9. The said salary certmcate has been proved by Kamlesh. Kumar Chandrakar (A.W.2). He has supported the‘contents of salary certificate by saying that the deceased was getting a total sum of Rs. 8,414/— per month as his monthly salary. He r-W‘ 4 Misc. AppealNo. 1272/2004 also depcsed that Rs. 700/— was deducted as Provident Fund. According to the contents of the pay slip, if only admissible deductions are taken out from the gross salary of the deceased, the income of the deceased for the purposes of the claim under Motor Vehicle Act, would come to Rs. 9,138/-. Infact the Tribunal has deducted those amounts which ought not have been deducted from the salary of the deceased. We, therefore, in the round figure, hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/— per month and Rs. 1,08,000I- per annum. By deducting'Rs. 36,000l- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency works out to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. The deceasedvas aged about 53 years and his widow was aged about 46 years. There were five daughters and a son dependent on the deceased. Many of them were minors. The Tribunal taking into consideration the service span .of the deceased applied the multiplier of 10. Considering the entire ‘ facts and circumstances of the case, we also deem it appropriate to apply multiplier of 10. By applying multiplier of 10 to the annual dependency of Rs. 72,000/—, the compensation works out to Rs. 7,20,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- under other permissible heads, the total amount comes to Rs. 7,35,000/—, which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as compensation for the death of deceased- Indra Kumar Sharma in the motor accident on 08.03.03.'The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 6,49,500/-. By deducting Rs. 6,49,500l- from Rs. 7,35,000/— the difference comes to Rs. 85,500I-, which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as the enhanced amount of compensation for the death of the deceased- lndra Kumar Sharma in the motor accident. a To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimant's 5 Misc. AppealNo. 1272/2004 appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which we quantify as Rs.8,500/— in this matter. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 94,000/- more (Rs. 85,500/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs. 8,500/~ as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which the appellants/claimants shall receive from the New India Insurance Company. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. l respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. Theappeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as t o the cost(s). ISM/n , ia l m ctnha “l I ' Sew Judge judo I l l $ Sunil. Kama, w . I 1 Manindra Mohan Shrivastavar