HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE-SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA.C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. APPELLANTS CLAiMANTS •^ Misc. ADpealNo. 175 of 2004 1. Smt. Ant Kumari Widow of Late Ganesh Ram, Aged about 30 years, Occupation House Wife 2. Chakradhar S/o Late Ganesh Ram, Aged about 12 years, 3. Kumari Janvi D/o Late Ganesh Ram, Aged about 9 years, 4. Bhuneshwar S/o Late Ganesh Ram, Aged about 5 years, Applicant No. 2, 3 & 4 are Through: Mother Smt. Antkumari W/o Late Ganesh Ram RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS h 5. Halo Kond S/o Late Budha Kond, Aged about 60 years 6. Gulabati Kond W/o Sri Halo Kond, Aged about- 55 years, All residence of Village- Beldih, Thana- Pithora, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Nazir Khan S/o Naslr Khan Musalman, Agedabout 35 years, Occupation- Truck Driver, R/o - Lakhagarh, Pithora, Thana- Pithora, Tahsil & Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Suresh Agarwal S/o Sri Vedprakash Agarwal, Aged about- 40 years, R/o- Saraipali, Tahsil- Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasamund (G.G.) !BN, Siggi.is'aig | ^,. ^3 3. Harjindar Singh S/o Sri Pritam Singh Saluja, Aged about- 38 vears, R/o Pithora, Tahsil & Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. Tfie Oriental Insurance Company, Limited, hteic-hahari Chowk, Madina IVIanjil, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACU988 Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counset for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 though served. Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (16th July.2009) 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Mahasamund (for short, 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 27.09.2003, passed in Claim Case No.63/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- claimed by the appeilants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Ganesh Ram, by filing a claim petition under s / Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 18.04.2002, when the Commander Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.23 GA/4299 in which he was travetling met with an accident with a stationary Truck due to rash and negllgent .driying of the driver of the Jeep, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Ganesh Ram, who succumbed to those injuries. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram was aged about 35 years and used to earn Rs.1 OO/- per day as Carpenter. 3) The owner of the offending vehtete Jeep did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parte befpretheTribunal. 4) The driver, insurer and subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle Jeep contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took the further ptea that the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep was not holding a valid driving licence; and the Jeep was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 5) The claimants examined AW1 Halo Kond and AW2 Balram Panigrahi in support oftheir claim, whereas NAW1 Najir Khan was examined in rebutta!. 6) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Ganesh Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 18.04.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep; as the offending vehicle Jeep, on the date of the accident, was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company •- / Limited, the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased "at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deductjng 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the Tribunal assessed theclaimants' dependency 4 at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annualdependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,04,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on theabove amount of compensation of RS.2,11,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 8) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsei for the appeltants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and in assessing his income at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month_and Rs.18,000/- per annum only; and In awarding low compensationof Rs.2,11,000/-only. 9) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper -. f eompensatioh in the facts and eircumstancesof the present case as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them. 10) The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Ganesh Ram dierf on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 1S.04.2002;. the accident occurred due to rash and ^"s ^c -® negligentdriving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle Jeep; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep was liabie to pay compensation to theclaimants; have nowattained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram was aged about 35 years and used to earn Rs.100/- per day, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum is certainly on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 13) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of the -notional income prescribed in the Second -- / Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14) The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2002, the year of .accident in the present case, wherein deceased Ganesh Ram lost his life, are taken into account, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2002. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased'at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 15) By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the persona! expensesof the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 16) Considering that deceased Ganesh Ram was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Kalpana and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 825; wherein the multiptier of 13 was found to be appropriate for the deceasedaged about 33 years \n the said case. 17) By multiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. The •^ / ciaimants, thus, become entitied to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram in the motor accident. 18) Learned counsei for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid ahy 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. 19) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Ganesh Ram lost his life took place in the year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2002; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003; the appellants/ claimants filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2004; and the appeal is being finally declded in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors inctuding 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 the matter, we quantify the amount of intereston the enhanced amountof compensation of Rs.64,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 20) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is altowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest' of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of ^ / compensatiori of Rs.64,000/-. 21) Respondent No.4 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.64,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensatipn + Rs.6,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 22) No order as to costs. r Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge SLjpbU