^^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 746 of 2010 Appellants (Claimants) ^—^ Respondents Non-applicants Smt. Gomti Bai, age 50 yrs, w/o Shri Domar Singh Netam, Domar Singh Netam, age 53 yrs, s/o late Nand Lal Netam, Both the above are r/o village Ghatula, tahsil Nagri, P.S. Nagri, & Distt. Dhamtari C.G. VERSUS Lachinder Sethiya, age 26 yrs, s/o Shri Samalu Sethiya, r/o. Village Alnaar, Tahsil Lohandiguda, distt. Jagdalpur C.G. (Driver of Truck No.C.G.-19/H/2207) Manohar Golcha, s/o K.M. Golcha, r/o. Jagdamma Metals, Power House Road, Tahsil & Distt. Jagdalpur C.G. (Owner of Truck No.C.G.19/H/2207) The Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office Behind Amar Talkies, tahsil & distt. Dhamtari C.G. (Ins. Com. Of Truck No.C.G.- 19/H/2207) Dalvinder Singh, s/o Balwant Singh, r/o vill. Near Oswal Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Ravigram, tahsil & distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner of truck No.C.G.-04/ ZD/5231) The Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, at Krishna Complex, l--'-^ S^\ 1 -:^ .^ iy M.A.(C)No. 746 of 2010 in front of Civil Court, Raipur C.G. (Ins. Com. Of Truck C.G.04/ ZD/5231) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER >th (18tnAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.03.2010, passed in Claim Case No.29/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.51,00,0007- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Anan Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 20.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.84,750/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 before it held that deceased Anan Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.08.2007; the deceased himselfwho was driving Truck No.C.G.04/ZD/5231 M.A.(C)No. 746 of 2010 and the driver of the other Truck bearing registration No.CG-19H/2207, were responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% each; as the Truck bearing registration No.CG-19H/2207, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.32,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.1,69,500/- . As the insurer of the Truck bearing registration No.CG-19H/2207 was held liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed, the Tribunal directed the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.84,750/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Anan Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.84,750/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^J^ y^ N ^ '"^^ss; M.A.(C)No. 746 of 2010 5) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of contributory negligence wherein the deceased himself also equally contributed to the accident, the Tribunal has erred in selecting lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.84,750/- only. 6) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held it to be a case of contributory negligence and the compensation of Rs.84,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Ms Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Dalvinder Singh and Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the owner and insurer of the Truck which was being driven by deceased Anan Ram at the time of the accident also supported the award. 8) As learned counsel for the parties have not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum, we affirm the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. 9) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side as the cl^iimants, who are parents of the deceased were aged about 50 years and 53 years on the date of the BS '^ ,ff M.A.(C)No. 746 of 2010 accident and the deceased was aged about 30-31 years. In our opinion, the appropriate multiplier in the case would be 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Munidpal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. 10) As deceased Anan Ram on the date of the accident, was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.48,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 11) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The total compensation, thus, works out to Rs.2,50,000/-. 12) As respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other Truck has been held liable by the Tribunal to pay 50% ofthe compensationassessed, the liability of '% ./•^;" .^' ,-^. M.A.(C)No. 746 of 2010 this Insurance Company comes to 50% of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-. 13) The appellants /claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.4,750/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,250/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-. The 50% of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. Rs.1,25,0007- is now payable by respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to the claimants. As out of the above amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, the Insurance Company has already paid Rs.84,750/- under the impugned award, the further liability of the Insurance Company, now, under this order is of Rs.40,250/- towards enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.4,750/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,250/-. 15) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.45,0007- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No ordfer as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^6 nimmi