gé; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVlSlON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C). No. 152 of 2008 Appellants 1. Smt. Chanda Devi Baghmar age 47 Original Claimants years w/o late Kapoorchand Baghmar (widow of deceased) 2. Dhirendra Baghmar age 25 years slo late Kapoorchand Baghmar (son of deceased) 3. Prabhakar Baghmar age 21 years s/o late Kapoorchand Baghmar (son of deceased) 4. Ku. Pooja Baghmar, Age -23 years, Dlo Late Kapoorchand Baghmar (Daughter of deceased) 5. Ku. Rasna Baghmar, Age-19 years, D/o Late Kapoorchand Baghmar (Daughter of deceased) R/o Mohanlal Kapoorchand Jain Wholesale Cloth Merchant, Sadar Road, Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents 1. Shridhar Shesh Rao Ghunge, Original non- Ghaghasi Khape, Post. Kalkapad applicant Chindwara (M.P.). (Owner Tata 608 No,MH—31-9742) 2. Rajesh Jhade S/o Dhanraj Jhade, Gandhi Putla, Chowk, G.E. Road, Nagpur (M.S.). (Driver Tata 608 No,MH—31 9742) 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No.4 Durga Sadan, Plot No.40' Balraj Marg, aiiWWWtmmwm r. , ”Dhantoli, Nagpur (insurer of Tata 608 MH-31 9742). 4 Arjun Singh Chouhan s/o Iate Laxman Singh Chouhan Chandra Colony Rajnandgaon C.G. (Owner Toyota Qualis Jeep Car No. C.G.—04E‘5400) ‘ 5 Vikash Lal s/o Aekheu! la! DaHirazara distt. Durg C.G. (Driver Toyota Qualis Jeep Car No. C.G.—0435400) 6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch omce Kamptee Line Rajnandgaon C.G. (insurer Toyota Qualis Jeep Car No. C.G.—04E-5400) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. q W...— Present: Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Shrl Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 6. ORDER (09m May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 23.1 1 .2007, passed in Claim Case No.66/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.35,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, major sons and y unmarried daughters of!,deceased Kapoorchand Baghmar, by flling a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 06.08.2005, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.3,60,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led t before it held that deceased Kapoorchand Baghmar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.08.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata 608 bearing l registration No.M.H.31—9742; as the above offending vehicle Tata 608 on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the lnsurance 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.60,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3’“ of Rs.60,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.40,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.40,000/- with the A m WWWWWmWMw,MwwwmwmgmmmWWW“wmwwwwmwwwwwmmm q/q multiplier of 8, the compensation was Worked out to Rs.3,20,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000l- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,60,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kapoorchand Baghmar in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,60,000/— @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/— per annum only; in deducting 1/3'd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in seiecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs3,60,000/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 6, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata 608 and the other vehicle Toyota Qualls, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) So far as the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/- per annum is concerned, the claimants should not have any legitimate grievance as the above assessment of the income of the deceased is based on the basis of the income-tax returnsrmed by the deceased under his own signature for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004—2005. It is true that in the income-tax return for the subsequent year i.e. 2005-2006 which was filed after the death of the deceased and under the signature of his son the income was shown at Rs.81 ,874/—. The above amount of Rs.81,874/- obviously cannot be taken as income of the deceased as the deceased admittedly run the business oniy for first five months of the said year and for the remaining seven months, the business was run by his son. 9) We, therefore, do not tind any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/— per annum. 10) Considering that claimants No.2 Dhirendra Baghmar and No.3 Prabhakar Baghmar were major sons of the deceased aged about 25 years and 21 years, respectively, deduction of 1/3” of the income of the deceased, in our opinion, is appropriate. We, therefore, afhrm the assessment of the claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal at Rs.40,000/- per annum by deducting 1/3’“ of Rs.60,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and daughters, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 12 would be appropriate in the present case. 13) By multip!ying thé annual dependency of Rs.40,000/~ with the multip|ier of 12 the compensation works out to Rs.4.80.000/—. , The claimants are further awarded Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.4,95.000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Kapoorchand Baghmar in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to 'avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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 blamed for the entire delay in the matter, vile quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of RS.1 ,35,000/- at Rs.15,000/~. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by the‘ appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,95,000l— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000l— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,35,000/—. 17) Respondent No.3 me National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,35,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.15,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,35,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice