HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2006 1. Ramji Sahu s/o. Budh Ram Sahu, . aged 50 years. 2. Jamwanti Bai w/o. Ramji Sahu,aged 48 years. Both residents of vjllage Soundur, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari VERSUS 1. Mohan Lal s/o. Brij Lal Mandavi, r/o. Timdibahar, Thana Sihawa, District Dhamtari (CG). J» 2. Shrimati Chandraprabha w/o. Pravin Yadav, resident of Khanda Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur (CG). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kachhery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (CG). MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miya, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23rd March, 2011) ''°"-.. ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Clgims Tribunal, Dhamtari, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.499/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 17,50,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Jhamesh Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Jhamesh Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.04.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.04-ZA-2330; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. "') <^ ^- 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rdof Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By* multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By adding furfhersum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation to the daimants for the death of their son Jhamesh Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of. compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award. 6) ShriAwadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miya, learnedcounsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawat, learned Senior Counset with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Jhamesh Sahu used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by working in a private concern (Pulse Green), no reliable and cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the* deceased to that extent. The salary certificate produced by the claimants before the Tribunal was not properiy proved as neither the person who issued the certificate nor any other personnel of the said Company was examined before the Tribunal. Inthis state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 9) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lowerside and requires reconsideration. 10) Considering that deceased Jhamesh Sahu, on the date of the accident, was aged about 20 years and was working at Dhamtari, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned .i,..%';WB-»,?, ^h. Rs.80-90/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 11) As deceased Jhamesh Sahu was unmarried on the date of the accident, 50% of Rs.30,000/- is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. We, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 12) Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 15,0007- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Jhamesh Sahu in the motor accident. 14) The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhancedamountof compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, isallowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,.000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 16) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.28,000/- (Rs.25,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Ransnath Chandrakar Judge nimmi