»',.'n-'.-.-— s ^.y/ mfm I-.<fe«^ '"' \^ f-^7" _...^^'°r ^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G^), M.A. fO N0, ,<3<-'| /200^ APPELLANT :. Rajkumari Sahu/W/o. Mahadev, aged about 23 years, R/o. Viilage-Pawnj, P.S. BilaigarhyDistrict Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. Medani, S/o. Ashwani Kumar, R/o. ViDage Pawni, P.S. & Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. United India Insurance Company (^ umjted, Branch Ofrice Station Road, Bhatapara, Bhatapara, District Ralpur ^^-^ 3. Chhatram Saht}p^S/o. Butu Sahu, aged about 6Tyears, R/o. Village" Pawni, P.S. Bilalgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) ftt^ ^'^°n^) RESPONDENTS ^^.t^ .--:-:^^::^ ;-.'n^"ul^'' ^ ,^ .<p\' CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL s AWARD AMOUNT s VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL' <^- €>9-< Rs.l@,25,000/" Rs.1,00^000/- (As the fearned Ciaims Tribuna! has assessed the Income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- on!y) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE NOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Y- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISaAPPEALCONo, 34/2009 APPELLANTS Rajkumari Sahu 20 Versus RBSPQNDENTS Medani and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER . (14-7-2010) 1. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Ist Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar vide its award dated 30-9-2008 in Claim Case No. 25/2007 whereby and whereunder the claimants have been awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,36,400/- as compensation along with interest at the rateof 7% per annum from the date of application till its payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6-5-2006, while the deceased Mahadev was driving a Marshal vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04/B-3426, near Beltikri Nalamod, the vehicle turned turtle. Mahadev sustained serious injuries over head and chest and died on spot. Report of the accident was lodged before P.S. Bilaigarh. 3. The claimants, unfortunate wife and father of deceased Mahadev preferred an application under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 10,25,000/- as compensation against the owner and insurer of the vehicle for the death of the deceased in the accident. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs. 2500 per month. After deducting 800/- of it towards personal expenses, dependency has been assessed at Rs. J •2/ 1700/- x 12 = 20,400/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 16, learned Tribunal has assessed Rs. 3,26,400/- as compensation on account ofloss ofincome. By awarding further sum ofRs. 10,000/- towards other heads, the Triburial awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mahadev in the said accident. Tribunal has further awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its payraent. 5. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded is on lower side as monthly income ought to have been assessed as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 6. Per contra, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned award and V submitted that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and the same deserves to be upheld. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. As the accident occurred in the year 2006 and in view of several pronouncement of Division Bench of this court and looking to increase in the cost of living and prices index, and also taking into consideration the effect of Section 163 A(3) of the Act, 1988, in the considered opinion of this court, the notion^l income would be Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 36000/- per annum in place of Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Therefore, I propose to recompute the compensation after taldng into notional income as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 9. By deducting 1/3 of Rs. 36,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, yearly loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs. 24,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 36 years of age, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 16. By multiplying yearly loss of dependency with the multiplier of 15, the compensation towards , %ss of dependency would be Rs. 3,60,000/-. By adding Rs. 15,QOO/- towards other heads, the total amount for which the claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 3,75,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,36,400/-, therefore, the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 38,600/- as compensation with interest of 6% per annum. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 3,36,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. Thus the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 38,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment from the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. Out of the enhanced amount, 75% of it shall be payable to the appellant and 25% shall be payable to the respondent No. 3/father ofthe deceased. 11. The respondent No. 2 / the Insurance Company is granted 3 months' time for depositing the above amount. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge