^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (Ci No. 106/2009 Appellant Munnalal Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS Jeevan Lal Sahu and another. ORDER POSTON 9r7 Januarv. 2011 J U D G E 22-/01/2011 r~"T"~~'^~~ ': ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A. (ClNo.106of2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Munnalal Sahu, S/o Shri Malikram Sahu, Aged about 38 years, R/o Villaage - Kodwa, Police Chowki - Lawan, P.S. - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) Versus 1. Jeevan Lal Sahu, S/o KanakRam Sahu, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village - Marda, P.C. - Lawan, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Raipur - (C.G.) - Driver & Owner- 2. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Office-Area Office Reliance Web 124- 126, Krishna Complex, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Suresh Verma with Shri S. K. Guha, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Aditya Sharma for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on^_.01.2011) This appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement is directed against theimpugned award dated 31.10.2008 passed in claim case No. 33/2007 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, by virtue of which, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.59,500/- as total compensation in a death case. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on fateful day of 19.06.2007 Kalindri (since deceased) and her husband i.e. present appellant were coming in a vehicle called Mazda 207 Dl (offending vehicle) from village Hardi to their village by carrying bricks. On way at Lavan Kowda Road, the offending vehicle was being driven by rash and negligent manner, due to which, the offending vehicle turned turtle, as a result ofwhich Kalindri sustained serious injuries and succumbed thereof. ^^^^^ // il^^^A I %li!^^lI %^> ^te^'.<^ 3. On account of death of Kalindri, present appellant preferred claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,15,000/- on various heads and pleaded that on the dateof accident, the said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2; Kalindri was earning Rs.6,000/- by doing as labourer and also by tilling. 4. By filing written statements, the respondents denied the averments made in claim petition. 5. All the parties led their evidence before the Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties and respective submission made by them, held that on account of rash and negligent driving of driver Jeevan Lal, the accidenttook place; in the accident, Kalindri lost his life. Although there was no clinching and cogent evidence regarding income ofthe deceased, the Tribunal awarded a lump-sum of Rs.50,000/-, without applying assessment method. By adding Rs.9,500/- under other heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate, the Tribunal worked out the total compensation at Rs.59,500/- It is this order, which is under challenge by the appellant/daimant. 6. Shri Suresh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the wife was not earning member. He also argued that learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that the deceased was wifeof the appellant, therefore, the appellant, being husband of the deceased, should not be dependent on her as he was earning member and wife should be dependent on her. It was also argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not taking the notional income of wife and in not using multiplier method. It ought to have applied multiplier method and should have taken notional income, therefore, the impugned award is not sustainable under law. He also argued that notional should be taken as Rs.30,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased, multiplier of 17 should be used and accordingly compensation should be awarded. He placed reliance in the matter of Amn KumarAgrawal & Anr. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 5335 in which it is hetd by the Supreme Court that service rendered by house wife is invaluable and :^:~ ^f^^^ ./.r / ^1''W^^M^:. I •';,^tl»•-^^.•^^ ^; 1/ .^ cannot be compared with service rendered by house-keeper/servant and compensation should be paid by applying criteria according to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 and applying appropriate multiplier. Reliance was placed in the matter of M. Sannu Ram Mandavi v. C. Mohan and others, 2007 ACJ 2347, in which, this Court held that the husband who may not be dependent on the income of his wife is entitled to compensation worked out by calculating net pecuniary loss of annual basis multiplied by appropriate multiplier. 7. Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the insurance company argued in support of the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned order includingrecord ofthe Claims Tribunal. 9. In this case, what should be the criteria for determination of the compensation payable to the dependent of a woman who dies in a road accident and who does not have regular source of income is the question which arises for determination. 10. Munnalal A.W.1 stated that the age of deceased wise is 35 years at the time of accident and she used to earn Rs.70-80/- per day. It is clear from his evidence that both the deceased and he used to lead their lives together. This shows that his wife was also contributing some money to his family. According to Hemant Kumar Sahu A.W.2, the deceased was earning near about Rs.100/- per day. It is true that no concrete substantive evidence is laid by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased concerned was earning any particular some of money as monthly income. Simply because such evidence is not available before the Claims Tribunal, it could not be said that the Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding lump-sum of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter added Rs.9,500/- under other heads. The Supreme Court and many High Courts, in recent times, have opined that even in the case of an ordinary housewife or unskilled manual labourer, Rs.300/- should be taken as monthly income for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. Accordingly, in the present case, it is reasonable to compute the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum taking into consideration the Section 163-A of the Act, in which, in the year 1994 .„•;:'--— <.;A'^. :AV'i< 1"''/. /y"^- \ ^.-.. >,•• f"^. "^. ^;^^-^-;-, ^. notional income was declared as Rs.15000/- per year, looking to the price of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 20Q7, the year of accident in the present case. If the above features are taken into consideration, certainly the notional income would come to Rs.30,000/- per annum. In this case, the claimant being husband is only dependent and none else. Therefore, 1 deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 15,0007- per annum. Considering the age of deceased at 35 years, as per post-mortem report, multiplier of 17 is proper according to 2nd Schedule to Section 163 A of the Act of 1988, which prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the age group between30 years to35 years. 11. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000 with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2,55,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. 1 am of the view that amount awarded under above heads by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. Thus, the claimant / appellant became entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,64,500/- as compensation for the death of his wife Kalindri in the motor accident on 19.06.2007. 12. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the daimant is 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. 13. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Kalindri lost his life took place in the year 2007; the claim petition was filed by the claimant in the year 2007; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2008; and the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation was filed by the appellant in the year 2009; and the same is being finatly decided in the year 2011. Ccnsidering all 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 delay in F—T —..\. the matter, 1 quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,500/- at Rs.5000/-. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.59,500/- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.2,64,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- 15. Respondent No.1 - Jeevan Lal Sahu is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.2,05,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^^g^