i, iéKR HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVI$ION BENCH Coram : HONIBLE SHRI WJEEV GUPTA. C.J.’& HGN’BLE $HR§ 3‘JN%L KGMAR $h‘4‘dA, . MA. No. 891 of 2W2 ; Appeiiants 1. Smt. Vimla Bai Nishad Wd/o miniams Sukaiu Ram, 37 years. 2. Kamiesh Kumar Nishad, S/o Sukalu Ram, 9 year's 3. Kama‘ Nishad, S/o Sukalu Ram, 6 yeaa's 4‘ Teejan Bai Nishad, W/o KaiiahWaial Nishad, 5O years 5‘ KanahiyaiaL Slo Nihaliram, 55 years, App. No. 2 & 3 minors Through Mother and na’tural guardian Aop. No. 1 Smt. Vimia Bai, Ali r/o Vin. Hardi, Teh. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Firtu Ram @ Pritam S/o Bhesh Nan-appiicants 'Singh, 21 years, r/o Viil. Kusumkasa, P.S. D§1Ii Rajahara, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 2. Smt Pushpa Devi Abni W/o Brijmohan Abni, R/a Bhilai Sector No.7 Deepak Nagar Durg. At present Abni Motor Garrage Beside P.S. Nandani, Deepak Nagar Durg. 3. The New lndia insufance Co. Ltd. ln front of Project Automobiies, GE. Road Bhirai, Distt. Durg Misceiaaneous Appeal UIS 173 of the Motor Vehic!es Act. Pi'esent : Shri Prafuli Bharat & Shri Santosh Bharat, ie'arned counse! forthe appeuants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri N.K. Agrawat, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Q. Aziz, iearned counse! for respondem No.3. ORDER (i‘h August, 2003) The foHowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J.: The appeilants have preferred this appea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai; Dhamtari, District Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 04-07-2002; passed in Claim Case No.390/2002. 2. The ciaimants, unfortunate widow. chiidren and parents of deceased Sukaiu Ram claimed compensation of Rs.15,08,DOO/— for his death in the motor accident on 12-04-2001, when the Matador bearing registration No. MP/24—9023 in which he was traveiiing with his vegetables was dashed by the offending vehicie Dumper, bearing registration No. MP/24C-3271, resuiting in his instantaneous death on the spot itseif. The ciaimants further pieaded that deceased Sukaiu Ram used to earn Rs.5,000/— per month by seiiing vegetabies. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Dumper did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. The insua’er of the Dumper contested the claim and denied its liabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants on the piea that the Dumper was being piied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the Dumper was not hoiding a vaiid driving iicence. 4. The claimants examined AW1 Smt, Vimaia Bai, AW2 Ramesh Kumar & AW3 Vijay Sing'n Thakur in. support of their claim‘, whereas the insurer of the Dumper did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence ied before it held that deceased Sukaiu Ram died on account of the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-04—2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Dumper; as the offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident was insured with the New India insurance Company Ltd; the insurance Company was liable to pay cempensation to the ciaimants. 6. The Tribunai assessed the income of deceased Sukaiu Ram at Rs.1,300/— per month. By deducting a sum of Rs.400/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.9OD/- per month and Rs.10,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.tO‘800/- with the muitipiier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of RsiGEOODI- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rst ,18,00D/- as compensation to the claimants for @ the death of deceased Sukaiu Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunai directed payment of in’terest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,18,000l— from the daie of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actuai payment. 7; Shri Prafuii Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in aesessing his income at Rs.1,300/- per month only; in selecting lower multipiier of 10; and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1 ,1 8,000/- 6niy. 8. Shrl N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3linsurance Company: on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs,’l,’i8,DDO/- 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 Sukaiu Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper was iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants, have now attained finality as the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award. That apart, these nndings are not under challenge before us in this appeai. We‘ therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. /\ —"%. “4i 1U. ‘i‘hough, the ciaimants pleaded thai deceased Sukaiu Ram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by selling vegetab!es, the evidence ied by them in that behalf before the Tribunal was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased, Nevertheless, the Tribunal in the event of discarding claimants’ evidence about the income of thedeceased ought to have assessed his income on the basis of notional-income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section l63—A‘of the Motor Vehicles Act. H, The notional income of Rs.15;000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. lf we take into consideration the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 and 2001, the year of accident in the present case, the notional income of Rs.l5;000l- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year i994 would come to Rst24;000/- in the year 2001.. We, therefore; propose to re—compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.24EOOG/- per annum. 12. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rel 6,000l- per annum. 13. Deceased Sukalu Ram was 30 years of age on the date of the accident, whereas his widow Smt. Vimla Bai was shown 27 years of age in the claim petition fiied in the year 2092. We are. therefore, of the considered View that the mumplier of 15 would be appmpriate in the present case. 14. By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs‘16,000/— with the muitiplier of 15, the compensa’tion works out to Rs.2x40,00DI-. The ciaimants are further eniitied to Rs.5,0001’- towards funerai expenses; Rs.5,0001- for loss of consortium to the widow; Rs.5;GDOI- for ioss of estate. The ciaimants; thus; become entitied toveceive a totai sum of Rsr2;55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sukatu Ram tn the motor accident. 15. ‘ Considering ati the reievant factors including the delay in disposal of the ctaim 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.’i,37,000I— at Rs.13,000/-. £18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55;ODO/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,600f- on the enhanced amount of compensation. 17. The entire enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,37,000/— and the quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,0GOI~ (totat amount of Rs.1 ,50,000/-) shall be payable to appellant No.1 Smt. Vimla Bai, widow of deceased Sukaiu Ram. 18. Respondent No.3/New indie insurance Company Ltd, is granted three months’ time for depostting the totai sum of @ a