A-P HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'Bl-E SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINMA, J. MSsc. Appeal No. 1009 of 2008 Appellants Claimants Y...- L 1. Smt. Sumrtt Bai, aged abovt 29 years, wctow 6f tate Sydapshais Chandrawanshi, 2. Ku. Mandakinl, aged about 12 ywwa (minor) daughter OT Aafe Sudarshari Chandraww^hi, 3. Ku. Maharani, aged about 10 years (minbr), daughter of late Sudarshan Chandrawanshi, 4. Mukesh Kumar, aged aboul 4 years (minor) son of late Sudarshan Chandrawanshi, 5. Pirit Bai, aged afaout 70 yeara, widow oflate Dulcalu Ram Chandravanshi, AppHcants No. 2 to 4 are mtnors, throughtheir naturalguardtan (i.e. the mother, applicarrt No.1) All are resident <rf Nmirgavkhurd, PX Bodla, Kabeerdham C.G. Respondents Non-appltoants VERSUS Kokram, aged about 22 yeara, son of Shri Tulasram, r^ldent of viUage Podi, P.S. Bodta, distt. KabeenWiam (Driver ofthe alleged vehtel^ Dr. R.N. ^4anilqxlri,r®8identof Nanik House, Karbalatalab, distt. Raipyr C.G. (Owner of the alleged vehtele) ^ ^ ^^^ -^. 'J] ^m.sss^ 3. Branch Manager, New tndta tnsurance Co. Ltd. near Dena ^uile, Nandini Road, Durg C.©.,throuQh the Branch Mana^eF, New tTOlla Insurance Gompany Llmtted, Rajendra Nagar Chowlt» BiliBpyr (ChhatUsgarh) (Insurer of the atlegect vehiote) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Present: Shri Sucthir Kashyap, ©ounseKwthe appeltants. - None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Anand Gupta, counnt^n brtwlf^f Stwi Ra| Awastht.coyRSell^r^piwidwtNo.a. ORDE^ ;., ..- ... . .. -• (^rMaroli.ait^ The foltowing onter ^ the Oourt w» passed toy R^evOupta, C.J. Thi8 te Glalmants' appeal for enh»ie«nert of the compensation awardect l^ the Flrst Addtttonal Motor AcGJdNrt Ctaims Trlbunal, Bilaspur (forshort the Tribunal*) vide awantclSat^l 04.04.2005, passed In Claim Case No.^^004. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs.1S,^,000/- daimed by the appeUanW Glalmants. unfortunate wtd<w, mlnor childiwi and mother <rf deceased Sudarshan ChandFawanshi, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct.forhisdeath in the motor accident on 11.05.2004, the Tttoynat awarded a totat sum of Rs.3,33,600/- as compensatlon along with interest @ Qft per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim p^ttton tiM the date of actual payment. ..•.3^^ /T^ '^ ^v.;-^--. % ^S'S^ i M ~' .:": .y .<; .^- L, 3) The Tribunal on a ctose acrutlny of the en8n evictenee ted before it held that decwaad Sudarshan GtwndiawanstA died on account of the injuries sustotned by hfm in the motor aeeidei'rt on 11.05.2004; the accident occurred due to rwh wid n^tigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicte Trax laearing registFation No.C.G.04-8/2143; as ttie above offendir^i veWete TIW( on the date of the accident was InsureGl wWi tti®New Insurance Company Umtted and the tnsurance Gonipaiqf ©@uldo^ estabBsh any breach of the poltoy condittons, the hisurance Company was liabte to pay compensationto the clalmante. 4) As the respondents have not fited ^iny appeal agalnst the award, the above flndings recorded by ttie Tribvnal hava now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal asse^ed the income of the decea^d at Rs.140/- per day and Rs.33,600/- per annum assvming that the deees®edwas getttng work only for 2^) days in ayear.By dKlyctjng 1/3rd of Rs.33,600/- towards the p^'sonal rxp^is^ of the deceased, tie claimant's Gtependency was a®sessed art Rs.22,4GO/- per arinum. By multtptying the armtial clependen©yof Rs.22,400/- with the multiplier of 14, the Gompensatton was worieect outto Rs.3,13,600/-. Byawardlng furthersym o( R8.20,000jf- untter other heads, the Tribdnal awarded a totarf suin of R8.3,33,@OCy- as compensation to the claimants for ttie deatti of de^asect Sudarshan Chandra\fi»nshi in the motor aecjdent The Tribunat further directed_payment of Intere^ on the above amoviil of ^^-.^.^ ^i"s ~"''^.. ''•^, 4 ( L. Gompen^itton of Rs.3,33,60(y- @ 9% peramum from tti®date of filing of the clalm p^ition till the date of actuN ps^ment. 6) Shri Sudhir Kashyap, teamed eounssl for tie s^petlants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in setoeting ttie hswer mutUplier of 14; ancl in awardlng low compensatlon of R8.3^,^X)/- only. 7) Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel appeartng on tiehrtf of Shri Raj Awasthi, leamed counset for respondent No.3, th@ New India Insurance Company Umtted, on the olher hand, supported the award and contended that the compensaUon of R8.®,^,^0/- awarded by the Trtbunal is Just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case: 8) The claimants cannot have any legithnate grievanw about the assessment of the inoome of e deceased tey the Tribynat at Rs.140/- per day as they themselves pteaded and proved before the Tribunal that the deceased was eaming Rs.140/- per day as Mason. We, therefore, do not find any fautt in the Tribunal's approach in assessing the annual income of the cleeeased assuming that the deceased was getting work onty for 240 da^ |n a year as it is a matter of common knowlectge thart the construction activjties in the monsoon season are never tn full »s)^ng. We, therefore, affirm the assessrffient ofthe inwme of the deoei®edby the Tribunal at Rs.33,600/- per annum. (._ V..- L 9) The clatmants' dependeney also has been riQhtly as^®s®el by the Tribunal at Rs.22,400/- by ctedycUng the usual 1/3rd <rf Rs.33,600/- towards the personal expensesof the dece^ed. 10) Neverthetess, the multiplier of 14 seleetedby the Tribunsrt is certainty on the lower side and reqyires reconslcteratton. 11) Deceased Sudarshan GhandrawansN in hfe pestmortenti report was shown to be 38 years of age. Thc GlMym @f the Apex Court in the case of Sarta Venna (Siirt) anddttiws Versus DelM Transport Corporatlon and anottier, reported in (2009) 6 8©C 121, prescribes the muttiplSer of 15 for the age group teetween 36-40 years. In view of the above quoted <ti<^um of the Ap®(©ourt, we are ofthe ophilonthat multipHerof 18 would be ap^opriate in the present case. 12) By multtplyjng the annual dependency ef Rs.22,4©0/-with ttie multiplier 6f 15, the compensation worte oyt to R8,3,36,00(y"; By adding the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal ynder c<her heads, the claimants become entitled to recelve a tetel sum of Rs.3,56,000/- as compensation for the death of cteceased Sudarshan Chandrawanshi in the motor accident. 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with^a vlew to avoid any possibte ctispyte between the patties about the period for whfoh the claimantsare entttled to receive inler^t ©nthe enhanc^ct amount of compensartton, the amount of interest on the enhancect amount of compensation may be quanttfied in thte appeal ttself. 4 ^': 1 14) Considering all (he relevant aspects of the matter, inducting the delay in disposal ofthe ctaim p^ttlon and ttw present appeal. and the fact that the Insurance Company alone Is not to be btamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount^ intere^ < . ^-^'..' ' '^ . :: on the enhanced amount of^compensrtion of Rs.22,400/- at Rs.2^xy-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flteGl by (he appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensatlon is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,33,600/- awarded by the Tribunal te enhanced to Rs.3,56,000/- with further quanUfied amount ofinterest of Rs.2,600/- on the enhanced amount of compensattoii of Rs.22,400/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the N®wIndia hisuraiice Gom|E»nyiimttod is granted three months' time for d^ioeWng th®total aum of Rs.25,OCX)/- (Rs.^,40(y- towards enhanoed amourrt of compensation + R8.2,600/- towards quantlfied amourrt of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatton of Rs.^,40Cy*) before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as tocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha F Judge subbu