~ ORBER ' (05m January, 201 1) e foliog order of the Cur was passed b Re Gupta, his is 'lants’ appeal fo enhanceme of the ‘ compensaion awarded by Fist Additional Motor Accident Chime Tribunal, Raipur (for shon ‘the Tribnal’ vide ard dated 1.01 .2004, passed in Claim ase No.40/2003. ‘2) As against te compensatio f R.10,22,090-, claed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate mother, sister and brothers , of deceased Sager Jaisinghani, by tiling a claimpetition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor V accident In the intervening night of 17‘“ and 18‘” of August 2002 the Tnbunal awarded a total sum of Rs 2 42 OOOI- as compensation ' v‘ along With interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofwfiiing of the claim petition tillthe date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutinyrof the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sager Jalsinghani died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident rin- the, intervening night of 17’" and 18‘“ of August 2002' the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drlvmg of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No MH—O4— AA/7946 as the above offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the date of theaccident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not [establish any breach v @ Th wm ot y ajev c J T caim r nt t the r u) aw 7 C h n o s/ im of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not med any appeal against the award, the above findings tecorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The «Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000l- per month. By deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month and ’Rs.30,000l— per annum, By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the‘compensation was worked out to Rs.2.40,000I-. By adding further sum of Rs.2,000l— towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of a Rs.’2,42,000/- as compensationto the claimants for the death of deceased SagarrJaisinghani in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,42,000l- @ 6% per annum from‘the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Kshitiz Shanna, learned counsel for the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunal though has rightly assessed the , income ofthe deceased and the ctaimants’ dependency, has erred in selecting the ' lower multiplier ofvtB and in .awarding IOW‘ compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- only. 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Ajay Mishra, leamed counsel for'respondents No.3 the New indie ' > insurance Company on the other hand. supported the award and, a contended that the compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded'lby the, Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the facts and s circumstances of the present case. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of teamed counsel for the parties and the evidence led by the ciaimants about the income of the deceased, we are satisfied that the Tribune! has rightiy assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,00G/~ per month and the clatmants' dependency at Rs.2,.500l- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 9) Nevertheless, the Tribunal certainly has falten into error in selecting the multiplier of Brand‘thesame requires re-consideration. 10) Considering that deceased Sager Jaisinghani was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimants are mother, sister and brothers of the deceased, we are of the opinionthat multiplier of10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum ’of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 scc- 731, wherein it was held that in those oases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.‘ 1A1) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000i— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.3,00,000/—. 4 12) The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,10,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sagar daisinghani in the motor accident. i 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute betweén the parties about the period for I 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 appeat itseif. 14) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- at Rs.5,000/—. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the voiaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.:£,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is, enhaneed to Rs.3,1 0,000I— with further quantified amount of interest ~ 'of Rs.5,000;’- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/—. 16) Respondent No.3 the New lndia Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.73,0.00/— (Rs.68,000/— towards ’ enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest onthe enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. padma l i i l i i 17) No order as to costs. Sd/— l l? Sd/— g Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justice " i Judge , fr ‘ l [_ _,v.~,_ w e *__.cg, WJ, i l