^ y:- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 173/2007 APPELLANTS Claimants 1. Smt. Bisahin Bai, wd/o Khorbahara Satnami, aged about54yrs. 2. Itwari Ram, S/o Khorbahara Satnami, aged about32 yrs. 3 Milan, S/o Khorbahara Satnami, aged about 30 yrs. Afl resident of vilt. Manth, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 Kodu Ram, s/o Daharu Ram Urao, Non-applieants R/o Villa & Post Daundekala, P.S. Dharsiwa, Distnct Raipur (CG) 2 Smt. Santosh Kanwar Parakh. s/o Ashok Parakh R/o 24 South Evenew Choubey Colony, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, DJStrict Raipur(CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1and 2. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondentNo.3. ^ R.L.Jhanwar, J ORDER (86.09.2010) k\° This is claimants' appeal for enhaneement Of the compensation awarded by the Chief Motor Accidents Glaims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short 'the Tribunal') vkle award dated 4.2.2006, passed in Ctaim Case No. 14/2005. 2. As againstthe compensationof Rs. 4,00,000/-claimed byttie appellants/claimants, unforfainate widow and sonsof the deceased Khorbahara, byfiling a claim petition uncter Seetion 166 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, for his death in Uie motor accident on 25.11.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- as eompensation along with interest @ 6 % 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 deceased Khorbahara died in the motor accident on 25.11.2004; the accident occurreddue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle beartng registration No.CG 04 6431; as the offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensatiod to the ciaimants. 4. As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- perannum. By deductingl/3"1 of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants'dependency was assessed atRs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation _L^fa- •'<.. was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towarcls toss of consortium and Rs.SOCX)/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal,thus,awarded total sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the deatti of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunat further directed payment of interest @ 6% perannum from the date offfling ofthe claim petition till the dateofactualpayment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the notional income; considering the age pf the deceased as 70 years and applying multiplier of 5. The accident took place on 25.11.2004, therefore, as per Schedule, noUonal income ought to have taken atRs.30.000/-; the deceased was aged about 55 years, therefore, the age should have been consldered as 55 yeare and multiplier of 8 should have been used to the age 55 years. The argued that the compensation should be enhanced to the above extent. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company supported the award and contended that as the evidence on the point of age was not proper, the Tribunal has considered the age on the basis of postmortem report. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.70,000/- is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 9. From the evidence, it is clear that except the oral evidence, there is no certificate regarding the age of the deceased. In postmortem report, age of the deceased has been given as 75 years, therefore, the Tribunal has considered the age ofthe deceased as 75 years and applied multiplier of 5 as per Schedule under the Motor /)\^ y I ^:^ •J . i -'"^:.-/ • '':• '-..•'^ ^ ^c^ Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has rightly assessed multiplier of 5 and considered the age ofthe deceased as 75 years. 10. The Tribunalcertainly has fallen into error Inconsidering Uie notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. The accident took place in the year 2004, therefore, the notional income is considered at Rs.30,000/- looking to the rise in prices of essential commoditles. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses.annual dependency of the claimants is catculated at Rs.20,000/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 5, the compensation is worked to Rs.1 ,00,000/-. Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.20,000/- under other heads, has already been paid to the claimants. 11. Considering the factsand circumstances of the case, in my opinion, further award of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interestcomponent on the enhanced amount of compensation woutd make the compensation of Rs.70,000/-awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present ease. 12. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compehsation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Respondent No.3- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.51,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- R-L-Ihanwar Judge