IN THE HIGH COURT OiLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) N0. ! ift?0 / 2007 Ap_@ellants Claimants 1. ^a 2. Respondents Non-applicants Itwari Ram Kodo, ' . S/o Bisru Ram, 40yrs. Smt. Fulwati, ^''" w/o Ifrwari Ram, 38yrs. Both R/o Vill. Tehkal, P.S. Antagarh, at present Vill. Parsaguda, P.S,' Bhanpuri, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). : Versus 1.- ^^iJS^. ..%;'^.^T .? u •a'i ^•v Mani Shankar Mandal, S/o Sukumar Mandal, 22yrs. R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pakhanjoor, Post-Pakhanjoor, Distt. Kanker C.G. Asim Bairagi, S/o Chandrakant Bairagi, R/o Naya Bazaarpara, Pakhanjoor, Post-Pakhanjoor, Distt. Kanker C.G. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. --•'' Through : Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 3. ^- ^- Claim before the Tribunal: Rs. 3,75,000/-r Amount awarded by the Tribunal :<1,34,OQ9,)'>;':J 34,9<ro Claim in appeal : Rs. 2,41,000/^--' Fbc court fee paid : Rs. 15.00/ V Arising out of award dated 07.04.2007 passed by M.A.C.T., Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.189/2006. --' Being aggrieved ofthe aforesaid award the appellants named above beg to prefer this appeaJ. on following facts and grounds : SA ^ mGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 1430 OF 2007 APPELLANTS fdaimantsl RESPONDENTS Non-apDlicants Itwari Ram Kodo & Another Versus Mani Shankar Mandal & Ofhers APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (SK: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal. J.) Present : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate for the appellants. Sliri Shaileiidra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ORDER •rd (Passed on 23" day of September, 2W9) This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement ofthe compensation against the award dated 07.04.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 189/2006. As against Rs. 3,75,000/- ciaimed by the claimants, unfortuiiate parents ofdeceased Vijay Kumar, aged about 18 yeai-s, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor VeSiicles Act (for short 'Act,1988') for his deafh. The Tribunal has awarded total sum ofRs. 1,34,800/- towards compensation for the death ofVijay Kumar in the said accident alongwith interest @ 7.5 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment. Shri Santosh Bharat, leamed counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 1378/- per month. He would further submit that lookiag to the overall evidence adduced by fhe appellants, the average daily income of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration as Rs. 60/- per day and Rs. 1800/- per month. Per contra, Shailendra Shanna, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/insurance company would submit that fhe amount Msessed and awarded by the Tribunai is just and reasonable. I have heard the couiisel appearing for tfae parities and pemsed the award unpugned. -°~r The Tribunal recorded a finding in para 11 of the award fhat fhe deceased Vijay Kumar was used to eam Rs. 52-53/- per day and his age was 18 years at the time of death. As such, in my considered opinion, the Tribuaal ought to have assessed the daiiy average income ofdeceased Vijay Kiimar at Rs. 60/- per day. By taking into consideration the daily average income of deceased at Rs. 60/- per day and Rs. 1800/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses ofthe deceased, the loss ofincome would be Rs. 1200/- per month and Rs. 14,400/- per annum. Since the claimants are parents, therefore, in view of dictum of Supreme Court passed in case ofMunicipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Aaother, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, the appropriate multiplier would be 10. By applyine the same, the loss ofincome would be Rs. 1,44,000/-. By addingfurther sum ofRs. ),000/- on other heads as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 1,54,000/- as compensation and as the appellants have already awarded Rs. 1,34,800/-, fherefore, as against the amount of Rs. 1,34,800/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 19,200/- in addition to the amount ah-eadv awarded bv the Tribunal. In the resuits, the appeal is allowed partly. The appellants are entitled for further sum ofRs. 19,200/- in addition to fhe amount of Rs. 1,34,800/- ah-eady awarded by the Tribunal alonewitti interest @ 6 perceat per annum from the date of application till its payment. The respondent No. 3/insurance compaay is direeted to pay the same within a period of fhree months form today. No order asto costs. -^—--.. N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu