/' v^, HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal No. 559 of 2006 1. Amar Singh s/o Daya Ram aged about 55 years, caste Kanwar 2. Mus. Shanti Bai w/o Amar Singh aged about 50 years caste Kanwar Both are R/o Village Gersha Police Station Dharamjaigarh. Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, district Raigarh. ( VERSUS Respondents 1. 2. 3. Anup KumarAgrawals/o Shri Kishan Agrawal, R^Q yillage Bazar J'ara, Pathalgaon^PoliGe Station & Tahsil Pathalgaori, district Jashpur (Owner) Chain Singh Sidar s/o Roop Sai Sidar aged about 38 years, r/o Vilalge Pathalgaon, district Jashpur C.G. (Driver) Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office : 24 White House, Road, Chennai (Madras) Through Branch Manager, United Insyrance Company Limited, Branch Raigarh, GopiTakiz Road, Raigarh. (Insurer) MemoofADDealunderSection 173 ofthe '. MotorVehicle Act, 1988 Present:~ Shri P.K. Patel, leamed counsel for the appellants. Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.'. : : '• .:. : •• ' 1: '• .: :'': Shri H.B. Agrawal.learned SeniorCouns^lwithSmt. Meera Jaiswal, learned couhsel for respondent No.3. ^ *t^ fsi ORDER (15th April, 2011) The following order ofthe Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Manveer Singh are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.02.2006, passed in Claim Case No.26/2004. s \ • ' 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Manveer Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01.10.1998, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.83,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in the event pf the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month ofthe passing ofthe award. 3) . The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led toefore it held that the claimants' son Manveer Singh died on accountofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.10.f998; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent -dViving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.M.P.26-D/4674; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and thelnsurance Company IKn / ><\s could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, 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 have now attainedfinality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per monft and Rs.9,600/- perannum. By multiplying theannual dependency of Rs.9,60Q/- With the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.76,800/-. By awarding fyrther sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.83,800/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Manveer Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.83,800/- @ 7.5% per annum in the event of the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month ofthe passing ofthe award. 6) Shri P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not aGcepting the claimants'evidence about theincome of the deceased and.in assessing his income at Rs.1,200/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplierof 8; and in awardinglow compensation of Rs.83,800/- only. _y^__ r^K^ St>^,..aS 1^5s%-' /' ^ \--^ • 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. MeeraJaiswal, learned counsel forrespondent No.3, theUnited India Insurance Gompany Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.83,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel'for respondent No.1, Anup Kumar Agrawal, the owner of the offending yehicle Truck, also supported the award. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Manveer Singh used to earn Rs.50/- per day as labour and Rs.20,000/- from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence wasled before the Tribunal to establish that the deceasedowned any piece of agriculturalland at all. • ^. •.'... . . . 10) Nevertheless, the income ofthe deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Manveer Singh,on the date of the accident/wasaged about 25 years, we are ofthe opinion that he could.have easily earned Rs.50/- per day even by working as :art,unskilled labour in the year 1998., The Tribunal, in our opinion, ought to have assessedhis income at Rs.1,500/- per monthand Rs.18,000/- perannum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. ^ \^: .••&"%-. "s ,[3^-' ""^ ^ J/ :"svff' ^f .^-!iK" Ms ^-- .^ 12) Considering that deceased Manveer Singh was unmarried on the date of the accident, 50% of Rs.18,000/- is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.9,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.18,000/- towards Uie personal expenses of the deceased. 13) The multiplierof 8 selected by the Tribynalis also on the lower side. In our opinion, appropriate multiplier in.the case 'would be 10 in view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in(2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein itwas held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.90,000/-. 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.1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Manveer Singh in the motor accident. 15) As the Tribunal directed payment of interest on the awarded amount of Rs.83,800/- only in the event of the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month '.^ ^ subbu of the passing of the award, we deem it proper to award Rs.3,800/- towards interest. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fited by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.83,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,800/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.16,200/- towards enhEinced amount of compensation + Rs.3,800/- towards quantified amount of interest) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 181_ No orderastocosts. _ - Chief Justice Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge