ITiD7 '^ >;\ ^^ -^^. (S) ) lt'^ HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUFTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Appellants Claimants Misc Appeal No. 209 of W06 1 Mst Patlangi Bai Wc^o Ramashwar @ Khauram, aged about 45 years 2 Agnuram, s/o Late Rameshwar Khauram, ^&d about 25years 3 Sagnuram, s/o Late Rameshwar Khauram, aged about 23 yeare 4 Sushma, d/o Late Ram^hwar @ Khauram, agedabout 19years All by Caste - Ghasi, r/o Tukupani, Tehsil Kunkuri, Di^tJashpur, CG Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Hemant Tigga, s/o Helaryus TfQga, aged about 50 years, Ca^e - Urabn, r/o Pagura Bartdi Jamchuan, Tehsil Kunkuri, Distt Jashpur CG (Driver) Helaryus Tigga, S/o Gustap Tigga, aged about 50 yeare, Caste - Uraon, Tehsil Kunkuri, Distt Jasl^iur CG (Owner) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insuranee Company Llmited, Branch Office Sunday Market, Raigarh CG (Insurer) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectfon 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present : Shri AK Prasad, counsel for the appetlants. -^s:: IBSB! ^> ^ Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel fw respondaits No.1 and 2. Shri AKAthaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (6m January, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ctaimants' appeal .for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribural, Jashpur, (for short the Tribunat') vide award dated 08.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.34/2(X)4. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,27,000/-, otaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother, ekter brothers and younger sister of deceased Jugnu Ram by filing a claim petitton under Section 166of the Motor Vehtoles Act, for his death in the motor accidenton 07.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,53,0007-as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion till the date of actual payment. 3) The Trtbunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Jagnu Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.105(X}3; the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent drivlng of ttie driva- of the offending vehicles Tractor-trolley bearing r^istration No.MP-56-IW0024 and MP-56-M/0025 respectively; as the above offending vehtetes Tractor-trolley on the date of the acoictent was ; :i;i^^^^& "s"aiKa W S ff ^.jcy '"^sa^S^^ Insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Umlted, and ttre Insurance Company could not establlsh any breach of the poticy conditions, the tnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the clalmants. 4) As the respondents have not flted any appeal againsl the award, ttie above findlngs recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal as^ss^l the income of the cteceased at Rs.40/- per day; Rs.1,000/- per month assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 25 days in a month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3"' of Rs.12,000/- tmards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8,000/- per annum. By muftiplying the annual dependency of Rs.S.CXX)/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,28,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunsd awarded a total sum of Rs.1,53,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jagnu Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of inter^t on the above amount of compensatton of Rs.1,53,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the passing of the award tlll the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AK Prasad, tearned counsel for the appellants sutenitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the cWmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at ^s.40/- per day, Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- psr annum Bieisl!llWl;i:i'^.:".i?i-^:>'MG only; in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- ; and in not awarding interest from the date of the filing of the claun petttion. 7) Shri AK Athaley, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, leamed counsel for respondents No.1 Hemant Tigga and Helar^ Tigga, the driver and owner of the offending vehicles Tractor-trolley also supported the award. 9) As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,500/- per month was not of clinching nature, we do not find any infirmity in the as^ssment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.40/- per (toy, Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12.000/- per annum. 10) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased in view of the dicfaim of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs Mohairaned Jameel and another reported in (20®9)2 Suprenre Court Cases 225. ^t 11) The multiplier of 16 seleded by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the fact that claimant Patlangi Bai, the mother of the deceased was aged about 45 years and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported In (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 121 prescribes muttiplier of 14 for the age group between 41 -45 yeare. 12) For the for^oing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Trifcwnal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multipller selected. 13) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has certainly fallen into error In t • directing payment of interest on the amount of com|Mnsation from the date of the passing of the snward and not from the date of filing of the claim petition. In para 26 of the award, the Tribunal haa mentioned that the claimants were mainly responslbte for the delay in the disposal ofthe claim petition. 14) From the Tribunal's records we gather that the claira petition was filed before the Tribunal on 11.02.2004 and the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal wtthin 7 months of the filing of the claim petition on 08.09.2004. Thus, it 1s apparent that there was no delay in the disposal of the claim petition. As ttiere was no delay in the disposalof the claim petition, there was hardty EBiy scope for the Tribunal to hold that the claimants were responsible for the delay. 15) We, therefore, award a lump-sum of Rs.10,000/- towards interest on the amount of eompensation awarded by the Tribunal 't!S!E^•t11^^ "SSiSSMSSS !WSSX3SS- Bitg'iW^ ^K .•c '~^>:.^y-' ^y.. ?i»u 6 •^. for the period from the date of the filing of the ctalm petltton titt the passing of the award. 16) The appeal flled by the appellante/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is allowed in part. The appellants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- towarcte interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the period between the date of the filing of the claim petition and the pa^ing of the impugned award, in addition to the sum of Rs.1,53,(X)0/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17) Respondent No.3 the Oriaital Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- before the conceming claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge padma