'N.’B,$H‘RI AJEEV GUPTA-,C.J. '& ON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J r. M 003 isc. Appeal No. 44 of 2 Bal Mka rijl a‘rm Vs. Ramesh Nara’an hai & other y B s FW E i % I Sdl- Sunil Kumar nha Judge N’E SHRI JUTICE RAJEEV GUPTA /- CHIEF JUSTICE #A ’J,. ost for Judgment :Za'1 0/200 rn~T—4Lf~__L;.Q=:==¢;:=_ SdL I Sunll Kumar Smha J ’ \ udge /L @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILAS’PUR CORAM: HOLE R H JUDGMENT Si HOBL S x 3 W sd § r LA (, P é 8? \ A IGH COURT :OF CH‘HATTIS‘GAR' BI VOtJEEVGUPT’A, c.J. 8 oN’LE SHRI SUNIL KU Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2003 Bijll Mk S/o. Del Mk A b y, e V Hiddd Ti Mh n ’ LAIMN ra aram, ola aram‘ ge aout 50 ears R/o. Villag a ahsl oala, Distt. ‘Rajnan’dg‘ao Vs ersu Raeh N B d 30 n l R VI Shgh Talk G Distt; Rkt; (G J y G pur D p() Rh Bh Py a J h d e g da IVDIIct Rt () At gp Sh J Sh t, iCy ‘R p ( G ) Orietl na INT ON—cuAIMT ms arayan hal age about years S/o Naraya Bha /o II rlnathar ua on'dal, ajo ujrat) At present through Shrl al Shree Transport Compan E Road Tatlbandh Ral istt RalurCG ames al atodla, S/o. Bl i Bai Patoiya R/o VIllag Shrlnatharh Taluka Gonl str ajko Gujrat resent rt al ree Transpor ompan G E Road Tattbandh alpur Dlstt Ratur C nsurance Compan imie hrou Diviona anger, Divioa ce, wer ous nea ‘ ta ilai, istt. Durg (C.G.) LAl déS 8) ppea unrection V1 73 of the'Mo’to'r Vehicles, Ac‘ti 198 ppeaac Mr An Shk f pt an‘d ula Counsel or the apellant/claiman r jay isra Counsel for respondent No 3/lnsuran Compan one for respondents No 1 & 2 H H, LASPUR HN’BLESHRRA ;- HB MAR SINHA,.;J. comm: APP‘ELILANT CAT RESPQ :j‘E‘'s NANs I y Ltd Tgh sil Ma sinl om Po he r Bus Snd Bh D ’ Arner M A Mh ce y N Misc. AgpealN'o. 44 of 2003 ’JUD‘GMENT (24.10.2008) FOIIoWing' judgment of ‘the Court was delive‘redfby f Sun‘i‘IKu‘marSinha,,J; 0 ‘ ‘ '0 (1) Appe'llant— Brijlal Markam has med this appeal, under Secfion‘ 173 of'th'ejM‘Otor Vehic'Ies Act 1988, for enhanéeme'‘nf of thelam‘ount 0f compensation awarded by the Motor ACCIdent Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon m Claim Case of 131/2000 on 30‘“ September 2002 J (2)2 Appéua’nt/claimaknt filed a Cla’irh' Petition, u/s‘ issdo‘f 'theEMéot‘ér’ Vehicles Act, cléimtn'g comperisatio‘n of Rs.13,05,000l— for the death of his son; Iiekhram in'a motot‘acéideni, which took placer on 13,7.2ioroo" . when he iii/as dashed by the offendin’g‘Truck bearing registratioh'iNo.’ GJ3U-4282 causmg multiple injuries to him resulting in his instantaneous death The appeltant pleaded that the aCCIdent occurred on account of rash and negligent driVing of the offending truck by its :driver He further pleaded that the deceased was working as a L conductor in Truck No M P -23 D 1251 and was earning Rs 2 000/- per month BeSides the above he was also receivmg allowance of ,Rs1 00/-~ per day, therefore looking to his dependency on the I I deceased, he may beawarde‘d th‘e'aforesaid amount along lWith V interest at the rate of 18%per annum. i i (3) Respondents No 1 & 2 remained ex—parte before the Tribunal ' whereas respondent No3 fled its written statement denying the l contentions of the appellant/claimant and pleaded that the acoldent o e if ccurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself therefor 2 [ 3 Misc. Appea No. 44 of 200 l 3 th ll l f a e app‘eant was not entited to receiVe compensatioh ‘It'urthér took l h h ffd g U- ‘pea tat since te oening vehicle’ bearing re‘istr'atiOh‘No. 'GJé3l i428 dd u of at, 2 was ashe by an other truck, which was the‘caSe cciden threfe t Cl Ptiti g eor, he aim eon should be dis’missed claimin compensation agains te OWne‘r'an te river of the offending rn t h d h d Tck ‘ NO. GJ3U4282. --- (4) :W-2 in support'o his IaimPe'tition, whereas, resondent No; 3 did A f C p l , no examine any wness n rebuta. t it i tl Appellant examned himself as AW-1 and one Amar Singhj Learne aims TribUnal reéordedsthe finding hat the accide occredon account of‘ra‘sh an neglient driving of the offending tr, m ‘ d g dck by Its river erefore te Insurer o the truck Ie resondent No d th h f p 3 herein was responSIbe o pay compensation to the appellant/claiman I t t he Triunal held that the deceased was earning Rs 50/— per day and l is monthly Income was Rs 1 250/— Out of this amount the Tribunal euce Rs 876l- towards the personal expenses of the deceased ddtd nd the monthly dependency of Rs 374/- and the annual deendency a p s 4/— was wore out ain the age of the deceased a 30 ears, e riuna appled he multller of 18 and the comens on v 1" was worke ot as s 84— ees the av he Trlbunal ware a sum o s 0 0/— uner the other permISSIble heads and _ the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs 90 7841 Te- , .j h Tribunal aso aware Interes at te rate of 12% er annum from th 1 dt f fl f C P l n ae o ing o the lalm etition tll Its reallzatlo G? i as d Cl t nt ' (5) T b h of R 4 88 kd Tkg a y th Tbl l t pl p d u R 8O 7/ Bsid boe t add f R 1 00 d l dd t h p e 7' ‘ 4 Misc. Ameal No. 44 of2003 @ g (6) Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that t ‘ ‘ ' the income assessed by the Tribunal was on the lower side, therefore, ‘ the same should be re-assessed and suitable enhancement should be i ‘ made in the amount of compensation. i 1 ‘ (7) On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for l i respondent No.3/Insurance Company, supported the award passed by l the Claims Tribunal. (8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claim Case. (9) So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the appellant has pleaded it to be Rs.2,000/- per month and he has given his o‘wn ‘ evidence in support of said pleadings. He deposed that the deceased was giving him Rs.2,000/— per month. Though there is no effective cross examination‘on this point, even then, the Tribunal has ignored this evidence and has assessed the income of the deceased ‘as Rs.50/— per day and 1,250/- per month. Such assessment of the Tribunal is not based on any reasoning. The accident occurred in the l year 2000. Even if we take this assessment based on the notional g i ‘ income prescribed in the second schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the ( : ‘ evidence of the appellant about monthly income of Rs.2,000/— and the I 4 annual income of Rs.24,000/— keeping in mind the lapse of time in l t , between 1994 to 2000. We, therefore, propose to recompute the \ 1 l m i Q t ll ii i 5 Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2003 c0mpensation taking the income of the deceased at ’R‘s\.24,’000/— per annum on the basis of evidence led by the appeliant in that behalf. s ‘ (10) By deducting 1/2 of Rs 24 OOOI- towards the personal expenses of - the deceased the appellants dependency is assessed at Rs 12 000/-- per annum‘. Looking to the age ofvthe deceased, which was 30 yearsi and alsothe age of the appellant, which was-50 years and further going by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter; of l MunicipaIiCorpora'tiOn ofGr‘e‘a‘tertBb’mba‘y +vs- Laxman Iver; & another,_(20'03) i8 SCC 731, we deem it prOper to'a‘p’ply the multiplier of 1O in this matter. By‘ applying the multiplier Of 10 to the annual a l dependency of Rs.12;000/—, the compensation works .out jto Rs.1,20,‘000/—. By adding a furth‘er‘sum of Rs.1‘0,000/— under the other l , permissible heads, asfawarded by the Claims Tribunal, the‘toftal ' " » amount of Compensation payable to the appellant on account of death l of his son Lekhram In the motor accrdent comes to Rs 1 30 OOOI- The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs 9O 784I- to the appellant” ' i 'v ’After deducting this amount from Rs 1 30 OOO/- the balance comes as Rs 39 216l- The appellant Is entitled to receive a sum of Rs 39 216/— as ‘ the enhanced amount of compensation for the death of his son in the a motor accrdent. l ‘(11) To avoid further complications and looking to the delay Caused in 7 l ' , ‘disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimants appeal and thatl - _ i » L the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed for such delay, we: deem it appropriate to quantify the interest which we quantify as. Rs 1O 784/— In this matter Misc. A 3 ppeal No. 44 of200 7(12 h of 7) Terefore, the appellant is entitled to receive a sum 00 R’s.5,0’0/- , R39,2 as more (‘sr.1 6/- e enhanced afnOunt ‘o’ censatin an s.10,74/— as e amount of qUantlfled intest o t o Ompan. he ‘enhaned'amount) which he shall receive from the Insurance Cy (13) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd /responden No graned 3 months time to deposit this amount before the concerned laims bna C Triul 4 he appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There sh l S- , d/ unil Kumar Sinha Judge th f empe d R8 th re n t 3 t (1) T all l f