HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON’ELE sHRl RAJEEV GUPTA. c.J. & HON’BLE sHRI MK. AGARWAL,'J. Misc. Anneal No. 39 of 2006 1(a) Samay Patro aged about 43 years S/o Late Vijay Patro (b) Appellants Iaimants (C) Dhananjay P-atro aged about 35 years SI’o Late Vijay Ratan Patrc Mritunjay Patro aged about ~30 years Sis Late Vijay Ratara Patro Ail R/o Viiiage’Shivnandanpur, PS Vishrampur Tahsi! Surajpur Distt - Sarguja CG Smt Geeta Rani Patro Wlo Vijay Ratan Patro, aged abeut 59 years Ku. Rama Patro, D/o Vijay Ratan Patro, Aged about 32 years, aged , about 09 years Versus The New India Insurance Company Limited Threugh Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office III; A-2, Jwaiamukhi, Sonbhadra (UP) Ram Babu Vaishya S/o BP Vaishya, Occupation Vehicle Owner, S/o Laxmi Vastraiaya, Goa! Market, PO Jayant, Distt. Sid'ni (MP) ‘Chitrakut, Sio Laiian, Occupation Driver, S/o Paroramnagar, varanasi through Ram Babu Vaishya, S/o BP Vaishya, Occupation Vehicie Owner, sic Laxmi Vastriaya, Goal market, PO Jayant Distt Sidhi (MP) RESPONDENTS 1 Insure! Owner Driver 32M Smt Somarani Patro, W/o Shailendra Yadav, 8/6 BB2, NSC Jayant, Distt Saidhi (MP) 5 Nationat Insurance Co.Ltd., Through Branch Manager National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Vindhya Nagar Distt Sidhi (MP). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE'ACT, 1938 Present : 8hri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsei for the appeiiants. Shri Ajay Mishra and Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, learned counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. Shrl B.N. Nande, learned counsel ~for respondent No.5. ORDER (3m september, zoos) The following order of the Court was pasSed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Surajpur, District Sarguja (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vlde award dated 22.01 .2005, passed in Claim Case No.39/2004. 2) The appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and sister of deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shank§ Patro claimed compensation of Rs.46,80,000l— by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 04.08.2002 when his motorcycie was dashed by the offending vehicle Tipper bearing registration No. M.P.17-C-1103, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseifl The .1. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement ciaimants further pleaded that deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro was aged about 25 years and used to earn Rs.7,005/— per month. 3) The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Tipper contested the claim and denied their liabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took the further plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Tipper was not holding a valid driving licence and the Tipper was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. The owner of the motorcycle did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the motorcycle contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The claimants examined AW1 Vijay Ratan Patro and AW2 Bijendra Yadav in support of their claim, whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Tipper and the insurer of the r motorcycle did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.08.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. of the driver of the offending vehicle Tipper; as the offending vehicle Tipper, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensationto the claimants. 6) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at v Rs.3d,000/- per‘annum. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.3o,000/- towards \ i / , ' the personal expenses of ther'deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/— per annum. By muitiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,00,000i-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,09,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ;OQ;500/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appeliants 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.30,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rsl ,09,500/- only. '8) Shri Ajay Mishra and Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 the New lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended 'that the compensation of Rs.1 ,09,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for tespondents No.2 and 3 and Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent s . N°-5 'a'SOVSUPp‘Orted the award. \ / 10) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Sujoy Patro \@ Tara Shanker Patro died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.08.2002; the driver of the offending vehicie Tipper was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Tipper was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality. 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 Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro used to earn Rs.7,000/— per month, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of‘clinching nature. in this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. 12) On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/— per annum and the claimants’ dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 13) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal considering that ciaimant No.2 Smt. Geeta Rani Patro, the mother of deceased was aged between 61 — 65 years on the date of the accident is certainly on the lower side in view ofithe recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein Vthe‘multiiioiieriof 7 was prescribed for the age group between ye 61 — 65 years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the muttiplier of 7 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) ‘\By multiplying the annuat dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiptier of 7, the compensation works out to Rs.1,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants; thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.‘l,50,000l— as compensation for the death of deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro in the motor accident on 04.08.2002. 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any 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. 16) The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Sujoy Patro @ Tara Shanker Patro 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 2005; the present appeal was tiled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the lnsurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,500/— at Rs.4,500/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons: the appeal filed by the appeiiantsl claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1.09,SOO/- awarded by i the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.1;50,00,0/- with further quantitied amount of interest of Rs.4;500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,5001—. 18) Respondent No.1 the New india insurance Company Limited, is granted three months‘ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.45,000/— (Rs.40,500/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,500/— towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,500/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs t l Sd/- ‘ Sd/— N.K.Agarwal Chief Justice Judge subbu