EIEGH SOEJR'F GF CHH ??§SQ$§R§'E Er E§i£$PE3 QEVE$EOF§ §EN€3§€ ESNagLE SHRI RiKJEEi Gi§?Ti‘\, (1.3. %§$§\5’3LE $§£R% R§$§GMA¥§€ CHg‘AN§E§ KARJ Misaaiia¥iemss mmea§ N6.1’§85 0f 28M 1 Gaukaran Sahu, S/o iaie Jethura Sahu, agaé awm kg. L 2a A? yeaa H baaa: L- T- “:5 Sm? Manki Bai, Wfa éaife Jaihuram aahm aged abaut 4? ygars, Cas€e Teié, occupaiion “nausewife Both are residems of vialage Tenduvahi, Post Bhoringi PS ‘ Tumgacn, District Mahasamund gilgapeiiams nu. maimai F11.as; u‘ ¥ERSU$ Nam Kuamr, Sio Hemram Yadav, aged abau‘i ‘ag years, Rm vi5§age Kua‘aum, i y ,4' a Past —’ Eahoring, PS Tumgaen. DistricE Mahasamund {CG} Senuram Sahu, 8/0 MHap Sahu, aged abeu‘i EQ‘yeam RA“: iii§iage Kukrai‘zih, Past — Sharing, PS Tum’gaon, Qistri-ci Mahasamund {CG} The rientai insurance Company L§m§ierj, Madma - gmk‘éing, Ngar Kachahri Chawk, Jaii Raad; Raiur (CG) : Qespwadem§ “san-agpiicams Niiscg§laneous Apgaem under Ssction 173 c€ Mater Vehicla ££$ vx $hri Shivegdu Pandya, counsei fQr the” appeHams. None far respondents No.1 and 2.~. Shri Saurabh Sharma, ‘cauns’e! for resncndeni M36. .w—r,;r.-.mnkmmvmmnc' ‘ x Present : R m ; p \fo GREE’R {263$ acigbera 2313; The ?QiEOWihg ardei' 3f the (3mm was passeii hy Eggeev Guam, 6.3. Thi$ is ciaimanis’ appeal far enhancement of the compensaiion awarded by the Seccnd Additionai Mote? Accidem .IV‘Qaims TribunaL Mahasamimd (fer Sher”: ‘the Ta'ibunai’) Vida award k dated 20012604; passeci in Ciaim CaSe No.?2/2OG3. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50;0DG/— ciaimed by ihe i , appeHantslciaimants; unfortunaie magor. son and widow 0f deceaSed Jethura‘m Sahu by filing a ciaim petiijon under $eciiion i 1.66 of ihe Mcior Vehicies Act, for his deaih in ihe motor accidei'it i on 16.05.2GD3! the Tribunai awarded a totai sum ei’ Rs.59,500/-va$ compensaiian aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the daie oiihe fiiing ofihe ciaim Qeiiiion tiii the date 0f aciuai payment. ' 3) The Tiibunai on a ciose scrutiny oi the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Jethuram Sehu died on account of the inguries sustained by him in ine mete-r accident on 16.G5.2003; the eccideni occurred dexe ’to rash and negiigeni driving of ihe driver ei’ the offending vehicle Tractor and Troiiey bearing regieiraiien. 'NeeiCG-G6l4475 and CG-G6M-06? respectiveiy; as the aboye offending vehicieJrecior and Troiiev on the date cf the accident was insured with ihe Orieniei‘ insurance Company Limited and the r insurance Campany ceuid not eetebiieh any breach Of the peiicy eondiiione, the insurance Company wes-iiabie to pay compensation to the ciaiments. 4) A$ ihe respcndents; have not fHed any appeai against the 1 award; me above find'mgs recorded by the Tribunai have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunai assessed the inceme of the deceased a? Rs.’§5,00!3i— per annum en the basie of *Lhe hetienal income prescribed in the Second 8cheduie under Section 1&3—A of the i 1 i Winter Vehieie Aci. By deduciing 1/3” m” Re.15,QQQI~ tawards the i personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency i wee assessed at Rs.i0,00Gf- per annum. By muiiipiying the annuai dependency of Rsi'iQDOOf- with the muifipiier of 5, the ’ comeensation was worked out to RsSf),0QO/-i By awarding further E sum of Rs.§,50(3i— under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.59,.5001— as compensation to the otaimants for the death o1? deceased Jethuram Sahu in the motor'acoident. The Tribunal i further directed payment of interest on the aboee amount 0f comeensatton of Rs.59,500/— @ §% per annum from the date of the fiimg of the ctaim petition ttit the date of actual pagment‘ 8) Shri Shivendu Pandya; learned oounsel‘for the appellants :submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the otaimants’ evidence about the income ef the deceased and tn t assessing his income at Rs.15,DC:O/— per annum only; in selecting 1‘ l the tower multipiter‘ofxa. and in awarding tow compensation of Re.59,500/- oniy. 7} Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counset for respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company Limited, on the other hand ;,R; sun orted the award and contended that, ‘as the deceased was an I i i n l \9 9 d infif perscn aged about 6O es, ihe comperxsaticn of i an m yar R 9 h 'rop .5}500i—, awarded by 'te Tribunal is just anci per ensa’cion in the facts ad circumsance of the case. c mp n ts: rue, the c§a§mants pieaed tt eceased Jeihuram ahu 8 T d ha d S d o earn RsjOG per day as iabour in adition to his u e: t I- d riiura§ income o R.25,00CJ- per annum, the evience ted in ehif Was not o ctir'tchi nature. I fact, no aocuntar td uch as re p t e'tence s venue paers etc, were'produced before he xtei o sbiish that the deceased had any agricutttal Tp‘ou t ete u tie at att. En this tate f ednce; w do not find any tautt tn the an s o vie e reach of the Tribunai in dicareitng the ctaémnts’ vidnce p s a ee ut th Eneme 0f th deceased. a? a e c e 9 evetthes the inome of the deased assesd by the ) Neis; c ce se ibai t Re.1,0- pet ann‘um in te year 200:3 ie certainty n Trun a 500/ h o cwer side a requires econsieratin. % se p eas J it 1 in our coniderd oinion, deced ethuram Sahu inspe i d a sf o: being age about 60 years, couid hve easily earned R80-90- per day even by working as an unskiiied iabour in the year 2003. We therefore; propose to re-compute the compensation taking the ‘ l . a I v income of the deceased at Rs.3G,OOD/- per annum. tit) Considering that there were oniy two ciaimants in the claim pietition and claimant No.3 Gaukaran $ahu is a major son of the deceased aged about 23(years, it was oniy other ciatmant namely Smt ivianki Bai widow of the deceased who was deoendent on the income of thexdeceased. We; therefore, deem it proper to deduct 53% of the income ct the deceased towards hispersonal l 0 I a cui f $ d tq‘a.‘ ba f ng n mey ttti‘e i nd rdo i I man w ¢ m perses The ciaimants‘ dependency, therefore, is assessed at l 15 000!— per annum {Eongidering the age of the deceased and hie widGW! we are z’nion that muitipiier of ‘5 wouid be appropriate in the p sew: case Bv muliipiying the annuai dependency of Rs,15,000f~ with the m’ui$igiief [ w. of "7, the oompe'nsatien works out i0 Rs.1,05,GOGf—. The € ciaimants are further entitied m receive Rs.5,0GOI— towards funera§ expense; Re e £103, owarcis ioss of consor‘ium to the wrdew and Re.5i00G/— for iose of es'rate. The ciaémanis, thus; become entitreci te’ receive ‘a teteE sum of RS.’r,2Clr00Q/- as cempensadon for the e; :ath of deceased Jethurem Seha in the motor accident. ’14) The daimants are furiher awarded a sum of Re.4,500!- as qriantified amount 0f interest 0n the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,560f—. t§) For the feregoing reasons the eepeet fiteé by the ctaimants f 1r enhancement of the compensate} is aticwed m eart The cemeensatlch of Rs b9 500l— awarded by the Tribunai rs enhanced to Rs? ,20,00D/- With further quantifieci amount of interest of the enhanced amount of compensation of Re 60,5GO/-. 16‘) ‘Resoondent No.3»the Orientat insurance Company Limited 1’ ; is Granted three months time for deposmng the total sum of Rs 6o OOOI- ‘(Rs.60,580/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,500i~ towards quantified amount of intei’est r 1 a Rs’AJSOOI— on v wrmwmmm ah the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60..5C30i—) beforo the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 1‘7) No order as to costs. 'Sdl- Chief Justice§ R N