HksH COURT OF Q§HA¥T¥$GARH AT BILASFUR imgm‘u gEKEvH Lamm : HQN BLE 3&RE R§JEE¥ GUP‘%‘ C J & HOEQ ELE SHRE S£JNIL KLWIAR SEKHA, v Mix. No. $93 0§ 26$? 1. tu Ram ’am S/o Bhesh RESPGREEENT$ Fir (a) Frut NGNnA P§6£NT$ gh 21 year {/0 Kusua ' asa PS Dah Rahar ajiégaaa iuag h evi m § L Sm a Vii: ‘ K l ma Dxstx Rna (Oaha ) 2. Smt. Pushpa D Ab Wio Brégmehari Ami, Rm Bhiiai Secé‘er Ni) 7 Deana Nagar Duro At nreser? Abm Niotcu' Garraqe BeSIde PS Naw am Deeaak Nagar Qurg. 3. The New Endia Ensuranoe Co. Ltd. ln front of Proiec‘t Automobiles, GE Read Bhi§a§, Diett. Dwg iMEeeeEEaneaue Angeaé W3 €73 a? the Mat/er Vehéeiee Aea. Versus A??ELL}&NTS ’i. Smt. Nandni Bai Dhruv; Weifo. CLAEM.&N?$ Vishnu Ram Dhrw, ageaé about 28 § years. 2. Bhaig Ram mm, S/o. Vishnu u ‘ Ram Dhruv, aged abaut 1G years. 3. “my Kumar, 8m. Vishnu Ram Dhrw, wed about 8 years. 4. Ku. Dineshwari Dhruv, D/o. Vishnu 1 3 A Ram Druv, aged abeut 5 years. 1 5. Ram Dhmv. we. 3ukinam Ram. ? aged abeu‘z 6G years ‘ ‘Ame ants No a t0 4 minors } ihmlgh Mame: am “iatu 1 auard‘an Amp noi Smt Nandm \ Ba; Dhruv AP R/c vm Hard: Teh Kumd, PS. Magar mad D!stt DhamtaFi. resent Shri Santosh Bharat ieamed counse! forthe appenart V Sh N Agra e eniar docate with $h Q A rned counse¥ f responden N3 None or reondrxts N 1 & 2. f sne o n K mak iea nc: g Av n ZLZ Ea er t 0. ORQER th (9 Sememberg 2M3; he foliowing orde; of the urt was pased by aa‘év‘Guag - T is mant eai for rwhanceme‘ni of te ; his clais aob n h nm‘tm add tn d;t:i o Ade aim ceensan ware by e Adona Ntor cant Cis Tunai, Dhamta, ct Riur (for ort ‘e Tbuna e ne n Dism ap sn tn nl) vm I a s 0 awrd daied 04072002, passed in Ciaim Cae No.391f202. 2. he claints, uoytunate widw, inor chilren and father of T ma nf o m d dease e‘nnu Ram Dhruv, ciaimed compensation of cec: Vi Rs.5j2Gi0OQ/- for hisdeath in the motor accident on 12042061, r§ whn e Meador bearing registration NoMP/f24-9023 in which e e th h we naveiiing with his vegeia‘oies was dashed by the offending e vei Dumpet’, bearing registration No. MPI24C-3271, resulting in . iel permnth y etttng vegettes‘ r 3. ’ The owner anct river of the offending vehicle Dumper di not oont the otaim and ere proceeded ex parte before the Tribunai; r 'i‘h insurer of the Dumer contested the eiaim and denied its iiabiiity e p t to ay ompensatn to the oiatmants on the piea that te Dumper or ’i hs mstantaneou deat on the spot itsetf‘ the ctaiman‘ts urther i is h f paded that deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv used to earn Rs.5,0GI3/- io b s ab t .i d d i tes w g cio h i i i i P s J T Co $ Qjgw s .3 ‘ I ‘ i I l hgoe t was being mied in breach of the poiicy canditions and the drivey of ' i'ne Dumper was not hotding a valid driving iicence. 4, The ciaimants examined AW? Nandni Bai, AWZ Ramesh Kemér 8: §W3 Way Singh Thekur §n support of their deims whereas the Enéwer of the Dumper did not examine any witness in rebuttai. 5. §The Tribunei on a eieee scrutiny of rhe evidence {ed befere it new jtheé deceased Vishnu ’Ram Dhruv déed on account of the inguries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.642001; the accident Occurred ewe to rash and negiigent driving of the driver cf ine offending vehicie Dumper; as the offending vehicie Dumper on i ifne deie of the accident was ineured wiin éne New indie insurance ‘ i Comoeny Lid, ihe insurance Company wee iiabie to pay oompeneeiion to the ciaimen‘isr 6. The ‘i‘ribunai assessed ihe‘ income of deceased Vishnu Ram Dnr v at Ref; ,3QDf- per month. By deducting a sum of RsrliQQI- per monih towards the personai expenses of the deceased; the cieimgenis' dependency was assessed at RSSQGf- per month and i . RsiiQEiODL per annum. By muitioiying the ennuei dependency of RsjiQSGQf- with the moltipiier of 10, the compensation was worked i , ent $3 Eisi ;CJE§E0GD/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.iG.,000i— under othefr permissibie heads, the Tribunei awarded a totai sum of Rs.’i§,18;(ii3i3i- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased \jtshnu Ram Dnruv 1n the motor accrdent the Trlouna! directed payment of tnterest @ 9% per annum on the above amount i r of cempensation of Rst ,18,0t)0i'— from the date of ftting of the ciaim i petition titi the date of actuai eayment. % 7‘ Shri Santesh Bharat, ieamed counsel for the appeilanis Submiiied that thé Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciai‘mantS’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his Enoolme at Rs,’i,3GG/- per month aniy; En eeiecting bwer muitépiier of 1D: enci in awarding low compeneation of R5,? ‘18?0C}0/- oniy. 8. 7 Sim NK. Agrewai, {earned $en€er Ceunsei for respendent No.3LLnsurence Campany, [On the ether hand; suvpgeorteci the §mpegned award and eontendeé that as the cieimants ceuid net esteioiisn the ineome of the deceased; the compensation of Re}; 18,!)QW- awarded by the Tribune? is gust and ereper h ensaflon m ihe facts and cwcumstances of he cresen? ceee CO 9. The findings recom‘ed by ine Tribcnai i‘net deceased Vishnu Ra} mo or accinent; the driver of the dumgaer was responsibie for the ac £dent and fhe insurer 0f the ofi'endlnci vehmie oumper was nab in 3y someensafson to the oiamants ai'e not under chanenee belore n We aoeeaE That aoart hese fmagng have new attameq fineaey $8 We ne‘efere eff r’n {he above findsnoe recaréee by the Tnbunel L .gh, t, Eaimante pieaaed that deceased V‘snnu Ram x Dhmv d§ed cn account of the inguries euetained by him in the the respondents have not fiied any appeai against the aweni. \ 1 F3 'ruv used to earn Rs.5;DOU./- per moniih by eeiiing vege€abies the evé‘dence led by them in Ehat behaif before the Tr‘rbunai was not of ciinching nature. in this state of evidence; we d9 not find any fauit in the eppmao‘n of the Tribunal in discarding the eiaimants‘ evidence about the income of t’ne deceased. Ul i1. NeverEheEeSS, the Tfibunai in the event cf discamEng aiaimants‘ ' evidence abaut ihe income 0f the deceased Qughi to have assessed. hie income 0n the baeie of notional income prescr§bed in the Second $eheciu‘ke under Seciion 163-A of the Meter Vehicies Act. ¥ 1’2. iTne no’imnei income of Rse15,00Q/— was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Aoi in the yea{ 1%4. The unfortunate accident in the present case wherein decea‘sed Vishnu Ram Dhruv iosi his life took piece in the year mm. if we} take into coneideration the increase in the pricee of the i eeseritiei commodiiies ane’ the cost of iiving during the period beiween i§§£i enoi 20m, the noiionei income of Re.15,CIQOI- orescjribeci in the Second Scheduie in the year $94 wouici come tc i Rs.24£IOQ/’- in the year mm. We) therefore, propose i0 re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rsr24,i3Q€§/— per annum. 13. ‘Sy deducting H3” of Rs.24,DQD/~ towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,<300!— per annum. Deceased Vishnu Ram Dhruv was aged about 32 years on the date of the acciden‘i whereas his widow Smi Nandni Bai Dhruv was shown 26 years of age in ihe ciaim peiiiion filed 'n the year 2062. in our opinion, the muliiioiier of 1&5 wouid he i appropriate in the present case, i iii. i By muiiipiying theannuai depeno‘ency of Rs.i8,UQOf— wiih the muiiioiier oi 15, ihe compensation works out to Rs2,40,90€)l. The ciaimiants are further eniitied to Rs.5,.000/- towards funerei expenses; Rs5IGQGI- ior ioss of consortium to ihe widow; Rs.5;00Ci/- for ioss of i i i i r 7,, i Wii i e$iate. The ciaimants, khus, became entitied to receEve a iota‘k sum of Rs.2,55,ODGI4 as compensation for {he deaih 0f deceased Vishnu i . Ram Bhruv in ihe moior aceident. 15. Learned counsei for the pariies submitted tha’: to avoid any a a9! u the computatzen of the InEereet en me ennaneed amamt 0f Gemgensaticn, ihe amouni “of interest may be quaniified in thée appeai iiseh'. Ccnsideying ali ihe {eievant faciofs inducjing the ee§ay \ m difeposa? of the siaim petiimn and ‘Lhe present appeei and ihe fact ih"i khe msurance Cempeny aione is mi to be b§amed fer me deiay i in ?he ma'iiter, we quani§fy me amcuni of inferest payab§e on the en’ a‘n d mount of compensation of RsA '31w0l— at Rs.’:3,Gi‘7OI—. 16 ‘ Cor ine $o¥egolng reeeone the eooea: med. by the claimants for hanoemeot o? ahe compensailon 1s aHoweo an oari The l ! % i I ropeosmon 01 Rs ’1 18 ODD; awardeo oythe mouna} 1s emenoed and the qnanti€ied amduni of interest of Rs.i3;0<EG/- (iokal amount of Reg? s50,QOO/—) sheii be payabie to appeiiani N03? Smt. Nandni Bai; wioow of oieceased Vgennu Ram Dhruv. i8.[ Reopondeni No.3/New indie insurance Company Lido is grafnteci three montns’ time for depositing the tom! sum of RsiLéQOGiDn (Rs.1,37,0GO/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rsfi3,00§l— towaide the quantified amount of i , . \ io R .2y55,€EUG/— with fuoher quantified amount of interesi of R 11 { {DDI- on “the enhanced amoum‘ of oomoensatlon 1? \ l . The entire enhanced amount of compeneation of Rs.1 ,37,QDQ/- @ imere3t on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the cancerhing CEaEms TribungE. .,.‘\ ‘ ... V1” VYFV, padma 33 No tamer as i0 sosts. Sd/— J \r Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ ‘ CHIEF JUSTICE Judge