,<"\ St THE HIOi CODKT ©FCHHATTISGARH AT BII.ASPUR. M.A.^Ho. 9/2- /2003. APPELIAHTS CTi&IMAliirs n 1. aaivprasad Bas s/o Sohaa Bas, age 27 years, Occupatl.on- Agri.calture. 2. 3at. Budhiii Bai w/o Sohandas, age 48 years. Both r/o village Marol, Tdhs.i.1 . Bagicha, 0i.stt. Jashpur, G.S. VE R SU S RBSPOBDENTS l'S<!»:: ^: ^^y ^"^'.'".•^ ^•t'^y ••••'^y ^y^-" .^" ^'<'" ^5^ .••• s 1. Sii'vsaras^n Prasad Gapta, age 52 ^ years. s/o late feaku Sao, r/o ^ vllla.ge Kharakona, P.S. Batauli, Tebsi.1 I.aadra, Distt. surgaja.C.G. (oa^R) 2. Purusbottaa Pujari s/o Lat.e D.pajari aqe 55 years, Occupatlon-Eriver, ^?r/o Bbattapara, Aadilkapur, B.I.stt. Sarguja, C. G. (BRIVER) 3. The Orieatal Insuranee Cempany Iitd. - j^Local Branch OffJ.ee, Raigarb.'C.G. (IHSBRER) APPEM* BHBER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHIO.ES ACT. L ^ }-'' ^ APPEAI. VMiUED IS S@& OF RS. 6.00,1 COVKE VBES PAID RS. l5/- ONLY.L.- b»-" \^-- Being aggrieved wi.tb tfae award dated 3.7.2003 passed ia M.A.C.C. So. 29/2002 by tbe ^SSd Asld.tti.onal Mofcor AeaJ.dent eialms Trlbuaal (Fast 'I'raelc Qsurt) •Jasbpar, Bj.sfcrict Jashpur, e.G», tbe appellants aamed above beg to prefer tfals meao of appeal on ,the followlng facts aad groundy aaoagst others. contd..2 ^ V. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble ShrLNawal Kishore Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar, JJ. Appellants Claimants Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 912 of 2003 Shivprasad Das and another. Versus Shivnarayan Prasad Gupta and two others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Shaktiraj Sinha for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 08.02.2010) The following oral order of the Court was delivered by N.K.Agrawal, J. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under award dated 03.07.2003 passed by 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Jashpur in claims case No. 29/2002 whereby and whereunder as against the amount of Rs.9,60,000/- as claimed by the appellants, a sum of Rs. 82,000/- as compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants against the respondent No.3 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realisation for the death of father of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No.2 in the accident. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 25.03.1998 atabout 7.00 a.m. the deceased - Sohandas.was travelling in a Bus bearing registration NO.M.P.27-B/3324 and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver - Purushottam Pujari, the said Bus met wjth an accident. As a result of accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. ^^gSass /' \;Stit. \ 1 -fc- 3. The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased i.e. son and widow, preferred an application under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- for the death of the deceased Sohandas in the motor accident. 4. The learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced and on appreciation of the material placed on record assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.700/-; and thereafter awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.70,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs..1Q,000/- on the head of loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants and against respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 5. Shri Shaktiraj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased atleast to the extent of amount as provided in IInd Schedule appended to the Section 163A of the Act; also erred in not applying suitable multiplier and thus committed error in assessing the amount of compensation. 6. Per contra, Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and deserves no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the award impugned and record of court below. 8. The claimants have pleaded in their in their claim petition that the deceased usedto earn Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal was right in not ccinsidering the same as no clinching evidence was led by the appellants in this regard.... However, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the notional income of the deceased, as provided under IInd Schedule appended to the Section 163A of the Act for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore, we propose to recompute the compensation. ;li^' 9. By taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15000/- per annum into consideration and after deducting 1/3 income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the yearly dependency would work out to Rs.10,000/-. Looking to the fact that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 13 would be appropriate. By applying multiplier of 13, the compensation on account of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 13). By adding further amount of Rs. 15.000/- towards other heads i.e. Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation would arrive at Rs.1,45.000/-, which we propose to award the appellants as compensation. 10. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.82,000/- as total compensation, therefore, the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs.63,000/- as compensation from respondent No.3. 11. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 12. In view of thesubmission ofthe parties, after considering the every aspect of the matter and after considering the fact that the delay occurred in disposal of the claim petition as well as instant appeal, the Insurance Company alone cannot be held responsible, and therefore, we propose to quantify the amount of interest at Rs.20,000/- on the enhanced amount. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimante for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for further amount of Rs.63,000/- in addition to Rs.82,000/- as~'awarded by -the Tribunal. This amount shall further carry quantified amount of interest at Rs.20,000/-. 14. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is granted 3 months' time for "depositing the total sum of Rs.83,000/- (Rs.63,000/- towards -•^•..•. .'• t:-.-'.;L^. ^^—.^.^^ .{.' ^ -^. ^ ^' s<li enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.20,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^.^ •Lii.rj.x:.^ i^^i^