HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Coram : Hon?ble Shri Sunil Kumar Siiiha and Hon^ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. APPBLLANTS/ Claiaziaat RBSPONDENTS (Driver) (Owiierl M.A. ( Cl No. 795/2009 1. Smt Asho Bai w/o Late Bhaau Raiu Safau aged about 32 years, 2. Ved Prakash Sahu S/o Lt Bhanu Rain Sahu aged about 14 years, 3. Kuber Sahu S/o Lt. Bhaau Ram Sahu aged about 12 years 4, Sheetal Sahu D/o Late Alalu Ram Sahu aged about 55 years 5, Anjaai Bai F/o Sheetal Ram Sahia age about 50 years, Appellant No. 2 & 3 arc miaor, Por fhern mother AppeUant No, 1 Asbo bai. AU R/o village-Kosagondi, Tah, Gurur, District Durg (CG) Versus 1, Kaushal Kumar, S/o Baliur Singh Saliu, age about 31^ R/o village Vinayak Pm', Tati. & District Durg(CG) 2. Siat Kavita Jam W/o Rakesh Jaia , R/o Qr. No. 154, Storeet No.30, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Tah. & District Durg(CG) (Insurer) 3, The ReUance General Insurance Co, Ltd,, Through Braach Maaager, Braach Office Shop No. 412 -413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavaa, aistaosibh Choak, Raipur(CG) APPBAL UNDBR SBCTIQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 @ Appearas&ce: Shri J.S.P.Chandrasen, counsel for the appeUaiits, Shri S,S.Rajput aad Shri. Raj Awasthy, coiinsel for respondent No,3. None for respondents No, 1 and 2 fhough served. QRJULQRDBR (04.12.2009) Per Suall Kumar Slaha, J. 1. The appeUaiits, who are widow, minor ehildreii axid parents of tlie deceased- BIiaau Ram have jBled tihis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhaiicement of the amount of compensation, awarded m Claim Case No. 17/2008 by fhe Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal (F.T.C.), Balod, Distorict Durg (CG) on 31.12.2008. 2, The appellants/claimaats filed a claun petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, claiaiiiig coinpensation of Rs,7,36,000/~ on account of deafh of deceased Bhaiiu Ram ui fhe motor accident, which took place on 18/2.2008 on account of rash aad negUgent drivirig of Metador, bearing registration No, CG 07C 4101 by its driver, The deceased was aged about 40 years. The appeUaats pleaded fhat fhe deceased was eanimg Rs.4,500/-per month by workiag as a Masion. 3, The Clainis Tribunal on its own, assessed the iacome of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month aad Rs.36,000/- per aanum. By deductuig l/3rd towards fhe personal expenses of the deceased, fhe dependency of fhe appeUaats was worked out to Rs.24,000/- per aniium. By applying niultiplier of 12 to fhe aforesaid dependency •^,"^'^ ^PNt of Rs.24,000/-, fhe compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/ -. By awaidiag a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - under ofher perniissible heads, a total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.3,03,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded iaterest at ftie rate of 6 % per aanum from fhe date of flling of fhe claini petition tiU its realization. 4, Shri J,S,P.Chandrasen, learaed coiinsel appearing on behalfoffhe appeUaats/claimaiits raised only one poiat He subinitted fhat lookiag to fhe age of thie deceased as also tlie claimants, the Tribunal ought to have used multipUer of 15 and fhe amount of compensation would have been worked out 5. On fhe other haad, Shri Rajput, learaed couxisel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3-Insurance Compaay opposed fhese argunients aad supported fhe award passed by the Clamis Tribzinal, 6. We have heard learaed counsel for the parties at len^h and have also perused fhe rccord offhe Claiax Case, 7, Adimttedfy, fhe deceased was aged about 40 j-ears on fhe date of accident. The widow of fhe d^ceased has been shown to be aged about 32 years aad his two miaor chUdren have been shown to 1"e aged about 14 years axid 12 years on fhe date of accident, The parents of fhe deceased i,e. appeUaats No. 4 and 5 were aged about 55 years aad 50 years on fhe date of accident. 8, In flie above facts aad circumstaaces of the case, ia our consMered view, fhe Tnbunal erred in law ia apptyiag tlie multiplier of 12 m the present case. In fact, looldng to fhe entire facts aad circumstances of fhe case, fhe Tribiinal ought to have appUed multipUer of 15 in fhis case instead ofinultipUer of 12. 9. By applyiag multiplier of 15, to the aiinual dependency of Rs.24,000/-,fhe compensation works out to 4 ||KNt: Rs.3,60,000/-. By addiag a fiirther smn of Rs. 10,000/- under ofher permissible heads, to the total amount of coxapensation, fhe claunaats are entitied to get, com.es to Rs.3,70,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,03,000/-, By deductiag the said amount from Rs.3,70,000/-, the differcnce com.es to Rs.67,000/-, which fhe clamiaats are entiUed to receive as fhe enhaaced amount of conipensation on account ofdeafh of deceased Bhanu Raiii tri tlie m.0tor accident 10. To avoid further compUcations and looking to ftie delay caused m disposal of the Claim Petition as also fhe claimaats' appeal aiid ttiat fhe Insurance Coinpaay alone caiinot be blamed for such delay, we deein it appropriate to quantify tlie iiiterest, which we quantify as Rs.7,000/- ia this inatter, 11. The appeUaiits/claimajats are fhus, entitled to receive a sum of Rs.74,000/- more (Rs.67,000/- as the enhauced amount of conipensation ao.d Rs.7,000/- as the aniount of quaatified interest on tiie enhanced aniount) froin respondent No,3. 12, Respondent No,3 is graated 3 raonfhs tirae to deposit the ainount before fhe concemed Claims Tribunal, faUing which, fhis aoiount of Rs.74,000/- shall cany iaterest at fhe rate of 6 % per anniuxi for fhe period coinmLenced after the lapse of3 nionflis tUl its realization. 13« The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, There shall be no orders as to the cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge sunita