% HIG!‘§ CQURT OF CHHATTgSGARH AT $§LASPUR {DIWSION BENCH CGRfi‘M: H$NIELE $H§i R'ME‘EV GUW‘A, C...L & HGN’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Amoeai No. 339 of 2mm § Mmealants 1. Sheikh Mushtaq; aged 41 years, S/o Ciaimants Sheikh Musharaf. 2. Ku. Neha Parveen; aged 1O years (Minor) d/o. Sheikh Mustaq. 3. Ku. Sonam Parveen, aged 8 years (Mina?) d/o. Sheikh Musi'aq. 4. Ku. Shaniya Parveen, aged 6 years (Minor) d/o. Sheikh Mustaq‘ 5. Ku. Shaba Parveen, aged 4 years (Minor) d/o.‘ Sheikh Mustaq. Appenant No‘ 2 and 5 are minor repfesented by appeiiant-No.‘i. Aii the above appeiiant 1 to 3 are Rio. Chandni Chowk, Raigarh, district Raigarh (QC-E.) ‘JERSUS k Reepundems 1. Kartik Ram, aged 41 years, $10 Duryodhan, R/o Surajgarh, P.S. Pusour, District Raigarh (0G) (Driver of the Bus No. C.G. 1372A 0162) 2. Gurupai Singh Bhala, aged 4g years} 810. Ajayab Singh Bhaia, aged 49 years) S/o Ajayab Singh Bhala, Rio near Nirmal Lodge Raigarh, Disirict Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The New India insuranCe Company Limited, BO. ai Madina Buiiding Jaii Road, Raipur (C.G.) Agopeai under Section 1?3 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 Present : $hri JA. Lohni, counsel forthe appellants. None for responden No. 1 & 2. Sm Q. Azi?’ 54nd. Shri G.V.K. Rae, couns for spondent No3. ORDER (13th October, 2a) 01 The following order of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, C‘J. The unfortunate husband and minor daughters of deceased Shakeela Begum are appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the ompenstion awarded by the ‘ Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasund (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated .02.2004, passed in 07 Ciai Case No. 52/2003 m 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/— ciaimed by the apllants/ciaimants, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of deceased Shakeela Begum in the motor accident on 23.12.2002, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rst ,15,400/— as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date.of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Shakeeia Begum died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 23.12.2002; ' the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the a ”ea—I”rwwha, W.\ r' ~~ a ts el re ca am pe @ driver of the offending vehic!e Bus bearing registration No.C4G.—13/ZA 0162; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New indie Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed 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.800/— per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.270/— towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.530f- per month and Rs.6,360/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.6136O/- with the multiplier of i5, the compensation was Worked out to Rs.95!400l—. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.i,15,400l- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shakeeia Begum in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.’i ,15,400/— @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiingNof the claim petition till - 7/ the date of actual payment. 8) Shri JtA. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in // @ assessing her income at Rs.800/- per month omy; and in awarding haw compensation of R34 ,1 5;400i— omy. 7) Shri Q. Aziz and Shri G.V.K. Rao, ‘eamed counse! for respondent No.3 the New india lnsuranoe Company Limited, on the other hand contended that as the claimants could not estabiish any regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,lS,400/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. &) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shakeela Begum used to earn Rs.l50-200/— per day by setting bangles, the evidence led in that behaif was not of clinching nature. in fact, it has come in the evidence of AWI Shaikh Mushtaq, husband of deceased Shakeela Begum that he and his wife jointly used to earn Rs.t50—200/- per day. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the olaimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased. 9) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.SOO/— per month in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 10) Considering that deceased Shakeeia- Begum was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that she could have easily earned Rs50l- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking her income at RsEOI- per day; Rs.1,500/— per month; and Rs.18,00D/e per annum. a 11) Considering that the claimants are husband and daughters of deceased Shakeela Begum, we deem it preper to deduct 'a sum of Rs.8,000/— per annum towards personai expenses of the deceased. The ciaimants’ dependehcy, therefore, is assessed at Rs.10,000/— per annum. t2) Considering t‘ne age of the deceased, her husband and daughters; we are pf the opinion that multiplier of 15 seiected by the Tribunal is appropriate in the present case. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multipiier of 15, the compensation works out to Rst ,50,000/—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000f— towards funeral expenses; Rst5,000!~ for loss of consortium to the husband; and Rs.5,000/~ for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, ‘become entitled to receive a totat sum of Rs.1,65,000/a as compensation for the death of deceased Shakeela Begum in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View 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. 15) ‘ Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter 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 \. r.\ “h @ biamed fm the entire deiay in ihe matter, erest on the enhan R$.5,4QGI—, t6) For the foregotnv ation is x apnettants! ctaimants for enhance towed in nan The comneneation of Rm, with further quantified h e enhanced amount of the Tnbun we quantify the amount ced amount of compensation ‘of of int R5.49,60i)l~ at ment of the cempens 15,4OOI— awarded by 1 65,030/a at rs enhanced to Rs of Rs.5,490!— on th amount of interest nsat'ron of Re.49,6DO!-. i?) Responde Limit unt of nt No.3 The New lndia insurance Company oompe onths‘ time {or depositing the totai sum (Rs 49 6001- towards enhanced amo ed is granted three m Of— towards ouantitied amount ofinterest i; r oompeneatton + RS‘SAG neation of Rs.49,600i—) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunat. ' t8) No order as to ooete. f" RN Chandrakar Sdl- ‘ %’J’“/ ,v i / / sal- shoe 1‘“ g V . Judge ff Ch at Sn g r ii i I subbu \