^t-. r^.^ ^-^-^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. ADpellants ResDondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 842 of 2009 1 Smt. Nan Bai; widow of Ranjeet Singh, age 48 years, 2 Pancham s/o late Ranjeet Singh age 32 years, 3. Mahabeer Singh s/o late Ranjeet Singh, age 22 years, 4. Zoor Singh s/o late Ranjeet Singh age 20 years All resident of village Rapakherva, Manendragarh, distt. Korea C.G. VERSUS 1. Nagar Palika Parishad Manindragarh through Chief Municipal Officer, Manendragarh, distt. Korea C.G. 2. Amzad Khan s/o Mohammad Salim age 28 years occupation driver, Nagar Palika Parishad Manendragarh, distt. Korea C.G. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Ambikapur, distt. Sarguja C.G. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present: Smt. Usha Chandrakar, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ith (19tnJuly,2011) ^ss'^'-Sais y.,^wss3,^ S' »K ~:at '%, ;J '^S^^.::- ^' '^"•vsy '-.:-?^^*-tel'^T't:<-' •' '^"'•^''•'W'u^"' 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Korea (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.90/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of deceased Ranjeet Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- 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 !ed before it held that deceased Ranjeet Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.M.P.-27-B/3613; as the above offending vehicle Tractor on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. ;^ K ' a <\. (-. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finalitv. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Ranjeet Singh in the motoraccident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Smt. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per anrium only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; in awarding low sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.87,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor, on the other hand, supported the award { ( ' and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income ofthe deceased, the compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examlne as to whether the compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancespfthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ranjeet Singh used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture; no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agricultural land at all. tn this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Ranjeet Singh was aged about 55 years on the date ofthe accident, we are ofthe opinion that he , could have easily eamed Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2007. We, therefore, propose to ' \.-'-~, y. '•I re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usua! 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,75,0(X)/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ranjeet Singh in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal 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. 17) Considering atl the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify ^ ':•.; .f the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.88,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.88,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rs.88,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.88,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order asto costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu