(g3 HEGH COURT 6F CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS?UR DWiSiON BENCH {30mm 2 HOWELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON’BLE $HR! $UNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. MA No. $§2 of 2W2 w\ , Misceiaaneous Appeai UIS ’i?3 of the Motor Vehicies Act. Present : Shri Prafuii Bharat & Shri Santosh Bharat. §earned counsel I for tne k aooenanis. ll l- Appeiiants 1‘ Smt. Mohani Bai, Wio caaimams Ganesuram, 38 years, 2. Ganesuram. 3/0 Hiraman Yadav. 4’? years, 3, Mahesh Kumar: S/o Ganesuram; gygars, App. No.3 (minor) thraugh: Mother and natural guardian app. 115.1 Smt. Mohani Bai A1: R/o viii. Hardi. P‘S. Magariod. Teh. Kama, Déstt. Dhamtari (Chhatt§sgarh) Versus RESPUNYJENTS 1. Firm Ram @ Pritam S/o Bhesh NON-AP?L5C&NTS Singh, 21 years, Rm Kusumkasa, RS. Dam Rajahara, Distt. Raj’nandgasm, (Chhatt§sgarh) 2. $mt. Pushnadevi Abni W/o Bri§mehan Ahni, R/o Bh§iai SectGr no.7 Deegak Nagar Durg. At present Abni MotorGarrage Beside RS. Nenda‘ni, Deepak Nagar Burg (6G,) V33” ,3. The New :ndra msumnce Ca. Ltd. 3n front of Pro}ect Automobiies, G.E. Road Bhilai, Disit. Durg (CG) None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri N.K. Agrawat iearned Senior Advocate with Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsei for respendent No.3. ‘O§DER gm Augusta 2mg; The foi'mwing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gugata, C.J.: V ‘The appellants havé preferred this appeal under $ection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement 'of the compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Dhamtari: District Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal‘) vlde award dated 04-07-2002, passed in Claim Case No.40512062, 2. The claimants; unfortunate parents and brother of deceased Gopal Ram claimed compensation of Rs.16,.50,ClGCi/- for his death in the motor accident on 12-64-2001, when the Matador bearing registration No. MP/24—9023 in which he was traveiling with his ve‘getabies was dashed by the offending vehlcie Dumper, bearing registration No. MPJ24C-3271, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Gopal Ram used to earn Rs.5.000/- per month by selling vegetabies. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Dumper did not contest the claim and were proceeded ex pan‘e before the Tribunal. The insurer of the Dumper contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the Dumper was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the Dumper was not holding a valid driving iicence. 4. The ciaimants examined AW1 Smt. Mohani Bai, AW2 Ramesh Kumar & AW3 Vijay Singh Thakur in support of their ciairn; whereas the insurer of the Dumper did not examine any witness in rebuttaii 5. The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied before it heid‘that deceased Gopai Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-04-2001; the accidentoccurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper; as the offending vehicie Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the New India insurance Company Ltd, the insurance Company was iiabie to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 6. The Tribunai assessed the income of deceased Gopai Ram i at Rs.1y3GD/- per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.500/- per w i 7’! month towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.93600/- per annum. By muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.9f600/- with the multipiier of 1t) the compensation was worked out to Rs,96,000I-. By awarding further sum of RsiQOOOI- under other permissibie heads, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rsi ,06,000l- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gopai Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunai directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the above i i i i i @ amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,06,000/- from the date of fiiing of the claim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 7. Shri Prafuit Bharat, learned counsel for the appeliants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting t‘ne claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,300/— per month only; in selecting tower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs} paoow— only. 8. Shri N.K. Agrawaig learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3finsurance QC-ompany, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that as the claimants couid not establish the income of the deceased; the compensation of Rs.1,D6,00Q/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case 9 The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Gopal Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Dumper; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper was iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants, have now attained finality as the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We; therefore: affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunai. 10. Though; the oiaimants pleaded that deceased Gopai Ram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by setting vegetabies, the evidence led by them in that behalf before the Tribunal was not of ciinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ctaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. Nevertheiess; the Tribunai in the event of discarding claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under $ection 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. 14‘. The notionai income of Rs.15,0GO/- was prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. if we take into consideration the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of iiving during the period between 1994 and 2001, the year of accident in the present case; the notional income of Rs.157DUOt- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would come to Rs.24,C3C)Q/- in the year 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24,00D/- .i pei’ annum. 12. As deceased Gopal Ram was unmarried on the date of the accident and wouid have been married in due course and after his marriage; the contribution to the parents wouid have been substantiatiy reduced, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants’ dependency, therefore; is assessed at Rs.1 2;OOO/-. t3. 'i'he multipiier of ’10 selected by the Tribunai, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation 0t Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman tyer and another reported in A,ii i @ (2W3) 8 SCC 731, wherein it was held that in those cases where ihe ciaimants are parents of the deceased; the multiplier shouia‘ never exceed 10, is appropriate. 14. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,00G/- with the multiplier of 10; the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs.5.ClOOi- towards funerai expenses and Rs.5,00D/~ for loss of estate. The claimants, thus; become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.l,30,0DD/- as compensation for the death of deceased Gopal Ram in the motor accident. 15. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest payable on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.24,000/— at Rs.3,000l-. t8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flteci by the claimants tor enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.t:06;OOQ/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.l,30,000/- with further quantified amount ot interest of Rs.3$000l- on the enhanced amount of compensation. 1?, Respondent Nod/New lndia insurance Company Ltd, is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs,2?tu0t3/— (Rs.24‘ODO/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs,3;OOO/- towards the quantified amount of @ interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunai. ’18. No order as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinh Judge Subbu Sd/— Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE a