$1G§1 SQQRT {3F €§E‘%b§??$§&§§§€ $5: 3§L§£PL§R QNiSmN BENSH $€¢RAEVEI HQN§3LE SRRE Ri—E‘JEEgwi @IEPTék 6.3L 3v: EawgiE $H§€§ $L§N§L KQMAR $§N%§As ‘3. ?v?E§€:@EEanews gimeg 5%0: 3% 0f 2%3 M Ul Eghmw 1. $W?‘ Siriaim Bang Wk; Ahdu! Jabbar M§rza, aged about 25 W5, Hcuse Wife 2. m Samba Paween, aged abw’i 9 yeam, D/o Late Abxjw Jabbar Mkza Mah$m Beg, Ageé abwt if years ' 3/6 La zibaéué Jabbar. 4. KJ AEKSa Fwveen, aged &b0u% 4 years; 9/9 Lam Aba‘m Jabbar Smi. Aghiyia, aged abcut 65 years, W/a Rehman Eeg. 5. Rahman Beg, ageai about 75 yeam Sm Rehamat Beg, ié‘ppeilam N03. 2 i0 4 are rapresented harem Eege§ guardian mother $aira Bang AH are R19 Behind Vévekariand A§hram, Ra§pw {CG} Eigfws i. Kuim} $Engh, S/o Mémeei‘ $imgh, {)ccupa'iéon: Bus Ovv‘mar, Rig Oswal Pe’UoE Pump, Telibanda, Raipur {CG} ?. Santaram Sonwam; S/o Bhcdu Ram Sonwani Occupation: Bus Driver, R/O Sma‘hi Bazar, Raipur {CG} The Oyienieé insurance Ca. Ltd. Divisionai Memager, Divéeiona? Of§ice N02, Shyam Marakei. Panari Raipur (‘36) (n “fees weeeE iiméey $ee§ée§w 124‘3 e? me Mega? ‘£eh§ciee AC1: 1%88 @g’eeeee : Sm SC Verme, §eamed ccuneei far the eppeilanie. shri Ali Asgar, Earned caunsel f0? respondent No.3. te L) ORDER (15m September, 2008) The following order of the Com was passed by Rajeev Gupta, Cd}: This is‘ciaimant's’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the Sixth Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur,(for short “the Tribunat") vide award dated 21 .102002, passed in Claim Case No,38/2001. 2. A t$l sum of Rs,60,00,000/— (Rupees SixtyLakhs onty) was staimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor chiidre‘n and parents of deceased- Abdul Jabbar, by filing a claim petitiofn under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the ~ motor accident on 14.07.2001, when the bus bearing registration ' No. M.P.423lJ-0803 in which he was travening as its Conductor met with an accident with a stationary truck bearing registratidn No. M.P;—23fD-9315 due to rash and negligent driving of the ‘ driver of the bus resulting in multiple serious injuries to deceased Abdui Jabbar, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Abdul Jabber used to earn Rs.4,000/— per‘month as Conductor in the said bus. 3. l The owner anddriver of the bus did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The insurer of the bus contested the claim and denied its liabiiity to pay'compensationto the claimantson the plea that the e Vic . bus Was being plied in breach of the pdlicy conditions and the driver of the bus was not holding a vahd dnvmg licence 5. The claimants examined AWI-1 Shana Bano and AW 2 - : " 1% Manharan La! In support of their claim whereas the !nsurer of the bus did not examme any Witness mirebuttal 6. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the eVIdence !ed before 1 _ ' It he!d that deceased Abdul Jabbar died on account of the Injuries Psustalned by him m the motor acoldent on 1407 2001 the acoldent occurred due to rash and negligent dnvmg of the driver lof the bus as the bus on the date of the acmdent was Insured V l .:Wlth Oriental insurance Company Limited the tnsurance ‘ Company wastiableto paycompensationtothe claimants r/ ‘ p _ l , i 7. The Trtbunal assessed the income of the deceased at & R31 500/— per month By deducting 1/3” of Rs 1 5OOI— towards the personal expenses of the deceased the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs1 OOOI- per month and iRs 1 2 @00/- per annum By multiplying the annual dependency of ~*Rs12@001— With the multiplier of 18 the compensation was ‘ worked out to Rs216000/— By awarding further sum of Rs 15 GDOI- under other heads the Tribunal awarded a total sum ‘ ' of Rs 2 31 OGOI- as compensation to the claimants for the death ' of Abdul Jabbar in the motor accident The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs 2 31 000l- @ 9% per annum from the date of F i lfalino of the claim petition till the date of actual amen pyt ma earned counse! or he apeants sbtd h ' l g e umite that te Tribunal has erred, n not acceptin th r c’ eviece about e im ‘the ded nd i laimants dn th ncoe of eceas a n assing hi inme a R.,0— er mt on; an, i ess s co t s150/ p onh ly d n aadin low‘c‘mpnion R2,1 — wrg oesat of s.3 ,000/ only. 9. S iA; o py ’ hri Al’sgar learned cunsel for the insurance Coman on tebther han suported he award and contende that th l ompensaion of RS231 OGOI- warde by the’Tribunal irus’t nd proper compensaion In e facts and Circumstances of the a t th resent case l The fndins recorded b the Tribunal that deceased Abdul g y Jabbar died on account o te Inuries sustained by him In the f h j ‘mo aidt 402001 the dve f th bu w otr ccen on)1.7., rir o e s as. " ps fe ; f b c t ‘i as the respondens ave not filed any appeal against te award _l- ha apart there is overwhelming evrdence available on record to We therefore afrm e aove nmgs recore by the ribunl f th b fd dd Ta 11. d Abdu Jabbar was earnig his iive ’ Decease l n llhood as bus ~ conducto e caimants leae hat e ecease use r Th l pdd t th dd d to 000 h T t l by th earn Rs4/- per mont rue he evxdence ed e t bhf not of clinchig nture The Trib claimants m tha eal was n a unal i t t ft ' ‘ therefore was no a aul in discarding the claimants eVidence aboutthe income of the deceased. Nevertheless, the Income of T 8 Sh ‘ 'ri l i resonible r the accident and the insurer o the us was, liable i to pay ompensation to he claimants have nowattaned fnality t h h Tt establish the above facts beond any shadow of doubt y @ SC Ver, l f t pll h d p t d e ct ad sj p the déceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,500/- per mohth only is certainly on the lower side and deserves reconsideratidn. Considering that the accident in the present case took place in the year 2001 ’ and the deceased was working as a btis conductor, we [are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to hat/e assessed the income of the deceased a't Rs.2,b001— per month and Rs.24,000/— per a‘nnum. Vile, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking‘the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000r— per annum. _ I V 12.‘ By deducting 1/3” of Rs 24 ODOI- towards the personal expenses of the deceased the claimants dependency is ’ assessed at Rs 16 OOOI- per annum ‘ 13 Q0nsrdering the age of the deceased and his Widow}, claimant No.1 SmtShaira Bano, we are of the, opinion'thaj‘t multiplier of 17‘ would loe appropriate in the present case. 14. 'By muttipiying the annual dependency of Rs 16 OOO/— with the muttiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs 2 72 000/- I The claimants are further entitled to get Rs 5 000/- towards funeral expenses Rs 5 OOOI- for loss of consortium to the Widow Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate. The claimants, thus become entitted ~ to receive a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/— as compensation for the . L deathof deceased Abdul Jabbar in the motor accident. ‘ " 15. . Learned counSel for the parties submit that~to avoid any \ possible delay in computation of the interest by the Tribunal on the enhanced amount of compensation and any possmle dispute .i 1 , g? y abou the od f w e lnts shoul g terest on the hanced amount o pnsa the test on the enhac ao of compnan m b aned m this appelsel 6. I Cid ll the reant actor iluding he delasi In osal clm on and the prest appea d the fact a t lnsuanc opany alone to e b for the delay th ate q amont of nret on the, enhan amn f compensan at 1 000/ 17. or the fegg reaso the pp by the i’ appllts for enhancent o the coeaon allowed in art. Te cosan of 1 0/- awar by the ‘Tnl enc o rther’qantified mun f rest f .00- n the nhanced ount of copnstio C0/— ‘ 8. spoet h Ontl lsurnc pan Limited r ~ ged ee ot r osn ot sum of ~ 5 0 t nance aount of R /- towards qa aunt of tee n th enned amut of compn ore the t peri or hich th caima d et in en f cometion Inre ned munt estio ay e qutlf ‘ attf 1 onsering a tev fs nc t disp of the ai petiti en l an tht he re Cm ls not b lamed m e mtr we uantrfy the u ites ced out o tio Rs 4 — F orom ns aeal filed ean em f mpnsti 1s p h mpentio RS23 00 ded Lribua is haned t R3287 0001- With fuu aot o mte o Rs14,0/ o e am mean of Rs 56 0 1 Rendn No 3 Te riea nae Comy is rant thr mnhs time fo depmg the tat Rs 70 OOO/ (Rs 6 00% owards ehd m compensation + s 14000 untxfied mo inrst o e hac on esation) bef ~Poncernmg Ciaims Tribunal 1 9. No order as to costs; V ‘ f;/"\ _ ‘ _ I . 7, M i Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE kw _ } _ ‘V‘W’a Scu- \ w s”"”§“'§a’$mha u . . r 1 7 u ge ‘ W