HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVlSlON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Aggeal No. 96 of 2002 Agpellants 1 Muneshwar Singh S/o Somnath Singh Claimants Bhadauria, aged 48 years 2 Munni Devi W/o Muneshwar Singh Bhadauria, aged 45 years 3 Smt Kalpana W/o Late Brijesh Singh Bhadauria, aged 22 years All residents of Village — Godiras Tahsil — Sukama, Distt Dantewada (CG) Versus Resnondents Driver Krishna Joshi Sfo Vishwram Joshi R/o Sukama Tahsil — Sukama, PS Sukama, Distt Dantewada (CG) 2 Ramkishor Singh S/o Jahan Singh Athaor, aged 29 years, Rio Gadiras, Tahsil — Sukama, Distt Dantewada (CG) 3 The National insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch 'Jagdaipur Upon Central Bank Jagdaipur, Distt Bastar (CG) Misc Aggeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Present : Shri Subash Yadav, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sanjay KAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (19m April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Ra‘jeev Gupta, c.J. \s 1 \ This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 21 .1 1 .2001 passed in claim case No.339 of 2000. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,80,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and widow of deceased Brijesh Bhadauria by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident in the intervening night of 13*“ and 14‘“ of September, 2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the parties before it held that deceased Brijesh Bhadauria died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident in the intervening night of 13‘“ and 14’“ of September, 2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.MP-25- B/1 684; as the offending vehicle Jeep on the date of-the accident was insured with the National insurance Company Limited; the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) > As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award? the above findings recorded by the Tribunal now, have attained finality. l l 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3” of the income of the deceased towards his persona! expenses, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 ,OOOI- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15.,000/— under other heads‘ the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of Brijesh Bhadauria in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shrl Subash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,5001— per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum, the multiplier'of 15 selected by the Tribunal is on the lower side and as such, the Tribunal has erred in awardin low g compensation of Rs.1 ,95,000/- only. 7) Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, iearned counsel for respondent No.3 the National insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that, the compensation of Rs.1,95,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in\ the facts and circumstances of the present case. / \ “gig 8) Though learned counsel for the appeHants has not chaHenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,500l- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum, we have examined the evidence led by the ctaimants to satisfy ourselves about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Brijesh Bhadauria used to earn Rs.5,000/— per month as grain merchant, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/— per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- per annum by deducting the usual deduction of 1/3” of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of deceased. 10) The multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side considering that Brijesh Bhadauria was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident and his widow Smt Kalpana was shown to be 22 years of age in the claim petition. ln our considered opinion, the appropriate multiplier in the present case would be 18 in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 18 was prescribed for the age group between 21-25 years. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the multiplier of 18 in the present case. i i l 4" s 11) By mu’!tiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 18, the compensation works out to Rs.2,16,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs.15,000/—, awarded by the Tribunal, the ciaimants become entitled to receive total sum of Rs.2,31 ,OOOI- as compensation for the death of deceased Brijesh Bhadauria in the motor accident. 12) 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. 13) Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposai of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.36,000/— at Rs.4,000/—. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,95,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced ’to .Rs.2,31 ,OOO/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.36,000/—. 15) Respondent No.3 The National insurance Company .Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rsr40,00Q{- (Rs.36,000/— towards enhanced amount of i/r" i t s \, compensation + Rs.4,000/- towards quantifie on the enhanced amount of compensation of the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. 16) No order as to costs padma Sdl— Chief Justice @ d amount of interest Rs.36,000/-) before SdF Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge . 1