f^-- ^?1y vs^'-' is laimants HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. .39Qof2i 1 Tulsi Devi W/o Heeralal Yadav, Aged about 46 years. 2 Smt. Lalita Wd/o Late Dileshwar Yadav, Aged about 22 years. 3 Sandeep (Minor) Age- 5 years. 4 ageshwar (Minor) Age- 3 years. For 3 & 4 Through his naturat guardian Mother, R/o Village Pakargaon, Thana - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur Nagar (C.G.). 3 Neeru Vishwakarma, S/o Debuka Vishwakarma, R/'o Raat Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand). Amar Singh S/o Bachchan Singh, R/o - Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Branch Manager, The New India insurance Co. Ltd. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). :MORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTORyEHICLE Present: Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. i, 1 ?—^gsrt'-i.. '~~. .^ ":':^ ^"^, ''^ \ ^^' ^- ith 'he followina ordsr the Court "!^i ir i 1 Ei^ti^i i'- Case No.40/2004. s is claimants' appea ion awarded bv the vide for enhancement itional Motor 17.01.2005, Dc 3nt Cla d in Cl 2) The claimants, unfortunate mother, widow and minor children of deceased Dileshwar Yadav claimed compensatlon of Rs.49,00,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on19.05.2003, when his bicycle was dashed by the offendinc vehicie Truck bearing registration No.CG-04G/0837, resulting in le serious injuries to deceased Dilsshv/ar Yadav who to those injuries during the course of his treatment in the hospital. The • claimants further pleaded that deceased Dileshwar Yadav was aged about 26 years and used to earn Rs.600/- per day by seliing milk. 3) The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck did not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunai. 4) The insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the offsnding vehicle Truck was not holding a valid driving iicence and the Truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. ^ 5) The ciaimants examined AW-1 Lalita Yadav, AW-2 Rajendra Prasad Agrawai and AW-3 Duharam in support of their claim. The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, however, did not examine any vi/itness in rebuttal. 6) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before It held that deceased Dileshwar Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.05.2003.: the accident occurred due to rash and negllgent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date ofthe accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 3y deductlng 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the CQmpensation was v/orked out to Rs.1,92,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation tothe claimants forthe death of deceased Diieshwar Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion ti!l the date of actual payment. »3a. •. T ^-' '•'SKsffS'"' 8) Shri Amit Sharma, iearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred In not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum; in seiecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- only. 9$ Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counse! for respondent No.3 -New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Dileshwar Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.05.2003; the driver of the offending yehicie Truck was responsible for the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finaiity. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above flndings recorded by the Tribunal. 11) The ciaimants pleaded that deceased Dileshwar Yadav used to earn Rs.600/- per day by selling milk. In support of the above occupation of the deceased of selling milk, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the ,f ^- •:. ^ s :y claimants could not estabiish that deceased Dileshwar Yadav was carrying on occupation of selling mitk. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Deceased Dileshwar Yadav was an young man aged about 25-26 years. The accident in the present case took piace in the year 2003. In the year 2003 an young man aged about 25-26 years could have easily earned Rs.70 -75/- per day by working as an un-skilled labour. We, therefore, propose to assess the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Dileshwar Yadav was 25-26 years of age and his widow claimant No.2 Lalita was 22 years of age on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/- as compensstion for the death of deceased Dileshwar Yadav in the motor accident. 17) Learned counse! for the parties submitted that wlth 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 appeai itself. 18) The accident in the present case vi/herein deceased Dileshwar Yadav lost his iife took place in the year 2003; the ciaim petition was ilied in the year 2003; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2005; the present appeal was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2005; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposa! cf the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire deiay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced smountof compensation of Rs.75,000/- at Rs.10,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed bythe appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,12.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 10.000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Ui'3'! |3 ^sswp^ i\^sa^ '^ :^'i& 20) Respondent No.3 -New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the tota! sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rs.75,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 10,0007- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SuniIKumar Sinha Judge subbu