HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTKGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH CORAM: HON'm.E SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNIl.tOIMARSllWIA. J. Misc. ABBealNo. 786 of 2006 Appellants -Claimante ResptMidents 1. Dasai Ram sfo Jhaguram, aged aboutSO years. (Father of deceE®«lShivaram) 2. Balmatt w/o Dasa^ Ram, aged about SOyeare. (Mottier of deceased Shivaram) Botfr are r/o. vills^e Bu^a, Tahsil Lundra, districtSurguja C.G. VERSUS 1. Fine an S/o Sagir 311, a^d about 30 years, occupatlon owner ef Bus, R/o. near Ram fttendir, Ambltaipur, distrjct Suiguja C.G. (Owner) 2. Raja Babusfo. Jagdev Prasad, aged about 28 years, oaa.ipaUon driveF, R/o. Viltage Dumaidih, P.S. Dhauipur, district Surguja C.G. (Driver) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Manedragarh Road, 'near Ambedkar Chowk, Amtrikapur, dlstt. Suiguja. (Insurer) Appellants Glaimanfe Misc. AppeatTto. 843 trf 2006 1. Smt. DharambEu w/o l^e Shharam, aged about % y®ns; (WifeofdeceasalShjvaram) 2. Ku. AshaD/o late Shivaram, ag^ -ft;;,. \ :',s-t^l. '^ •ii.. l<yyy" ''"^' r;'^^ i.0 Respondents about 6 years. (daughter of deceased Shlvaram) thraigh natural guardian mother Smt. Dharambai(AppdlantNo.1) All are resident of village Bulga, , dl^rid Surguja, P.S. Dhaiiipur, C.G. VERSUS 1. Firoz Khan S/o Sagir »an, aged aboyt SOyairs, occupation owner of Bus, R/o. near Ram Mandic, Ambikapur, distrhd Surgi^i C.G. (Owner) 2. Raja Babu s/o. Jagdev Prasad, aged ;about SS yeass, occupsdton driver^ R/o. Viltage Dunmrdih, P.S. Dhaurpur, district Su^uja C.G. (Driver) ••J 3. The Oriental tnsurance Company Umlted, Branch Qffice,Rtenedragath Road, near Ambedkar Ctwmrtt, Ambikapur, dl^t. Su^ifla. (Insurer) MEMORANDUMOF APPEALS UNIffiRSECTIGffiil W30iF THE -^^T6R H^t£SACTT -—^ Present: Shri N.K. fttehta,Gciutiselforthes^ellants, Shri A.K. Athaley, coynsel for respondent No.3. the Oriental Insurance Gompany Limitod. ORECR (05thMarch.2<»11) The following order of Ihe Gcwrt was passed by Raje«y6ujrta,G.J. Ttre hnpugned award datal 29.01.2005, passed by the Fourth Addltional MotOr Accklent Clalms Tribunat, Ainblkapur (Tor short the Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos. 32QOTO aml 33/20G0 has given rise to filing of these two miscellaneous app^ils for enhanGement of the compensation. 2) Appeltants Smt. Dt^rambai and Ku. Asttti, wldsw and mtnor daughter of deceased Shroaram (appeBants in M.A. No. 84^2005) and appellants Dasai Ram and Bafms^, fatha' and nrottier (rf deceased Shivaram (appellants in MA. No. ^6/2005) flted separate claim petitibns beforethe Tribunat claimmgcompensatton for the death of Shlvaram in the motor aeGldert <m 03.06.2002. 3) TheTribunal ona close scrutiny oftheentire evidenceted before it hekl that deceased Shivaram died on aceount of ie injuries sustained by him in the mrtor accictent on (S.06.2^2; the aeciderit occurreddue to rash andnegligentdrMngofthedriverof the offending vehicte Bus bearir^ regisfration No.M.P.27/B/%77; as the above offendlng vehtele Biis on ttie date ofthe accident was insured wtth the Orfental Insurance Corapany UrmtaJ and the Insurance Company coukt not ^ablish any breaoh of the potic^ eondition3, the Insurarme Companywas Itebte to pay eompensatt»n tothedaiinants. 4) As the respCTidents have not fited any appeat agahi^ the award, the above findings reconled by the Tritxma^ have now attained flnality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income rf the ctecessed srt Rs.15,000/- per annum on the tasis of the fwtipnd incCTne prescribed in the Swond Schedute under Secti<m 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3"' of Rs.lS.OOW- towards the personal e^Nrees of the deceased, the claimant's ctependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annunr. By muttiplying theannual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the mutti{Nier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-; By awaaxling further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heacte, ttw Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to ttieGlaimants for the death of deeeased Shivaram in the motor accident. The Tribunat further dlrected payment of intere^ on the abeve anfwwnt of eompensation <rf Rs.1,77,000/- @ 9% per annum from the deto of filing of the ctaim p^ition titl the date of SNstual payment. The Tribunal apportioned the abow amount of conqaensartion of Rs.t,77',0(X)/- In equal ratio of S) : 50 l^ween the wdow and daughter on one haiti and the parentson ttie otheirhamd. 6) Shri N.K. Mehta, leamed counsel for theappetlants nboth the appeats submttted ttat the Tribunal has en-ed in not aceepting the ctaimants' evklence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and m awaniing low eompens^ion of Rs.1,77,000/-only. 7) Shrl A.K. Athaley, teamed eounsd for respomlent No.3, the Oriental Ijnsurance Com| ny Umjted, on the ottter haBid, supported the award and contCTded thal the compensatKHi of Rs.1,77,0(W- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper com(»n8aUon in Uie facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awanted by the Cairts/Tribunals slwutd be just and proper compensation in the faffits and ciroumstanoes of the case. It shoutel nelther t^e a mesger amountof GotBpensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shaU examine as to whether the compeireaHon of Rs.1,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunat te just and prof»r compensation ih thefacte amt circunretances ofthepresKitcase. 10> True, the claimatds pleacted that dw^sed SMvaram usedto eam Rs,4,50Q/- per month s®driver, no reliabte and ctinchir^ evklence was led before the Tribunal to e^tolish ttrert the dereased was a driver by occuiratlon and he hasl income to ttie extent of Rs.4,500/- per month. Even the anptoyer <rf the deceasedwas not examined before the Tribi.ina) bythe ctatmanfe. In this^ate ofevidence.wedo not flnd anyfauft hi the apptoaeh of the Tribunal in discarding Uiectatmants' evlderee about theincome ofthedeceased: 11) Neverthel^, the income of the deceas«la^essed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,0(XV- per annum m tiie year 20ES Is cKtalnly on the lower side and requiresreconsiderarttOTi. 12) Cpi^idering that deceaseet Shivaram, on the date of the accident, was a^ed about'-SK) years, we are of B opinioirthat he couldhave easilyeamed Rs.70-75/-per day in the year2002 even by woridi^ as an unskilled labour. We, therefcre, f»opwse to re-compute the compensation taldi^i the income of the deceased al Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the.usual 1^r<l of Rs.24,(XW- towards the pereongl eiqaen^s oftt d«»ssed,the daimants'-dependenGy is assessed at Rs.16,OOCV- perannum. 14) Considering the age of the deroased, his widow, their daughter and parents of the decea^d we we of e qxnion that multiplier of 16wouM beaRpropriate in the presentcase. 15) By mulUptylng the annual dependency of (^.IS.tXXi/- wth the multiplier of 16 the compensatKm wori®otrt to Rs.2,S6,000/-. The Glaimants are further entitled to recetve Rs.S.OOO/- towards funeral eiyenses; Rs.5,000/- ftw toss of estate; and Rs.5,OOQ/- lor loss of consortium to the widow. The clahnante, thus, becmne errtitled to receiveatrtal sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation for the deathof^ceased Shwaramin the motoraecident. 16) Leamed counsel for the parties sulMnitted thrt with a view to avokl any possibte dispute between the partiestoefore the Tribunal about the period fbr whteh theGlaimante are enUtted to reroive interest on the aihaneed amount of compensatlon, the amniid of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatiw may be quantiTiedjnthisappealttselT. T7) Consfdering all the F^levant ispecte of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the clafm petition, and the p«sentappeal andthefaGtthatthelnsuranGeCompanyartoneisnGttobetolamed fpr the entire delay in the matter, wre quanli^ the amount crf mter^ on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,CXXi/- at Rs.11,000/-. 18) Considering that the parents of the deceased were aged about 60 years and 50 years on the date of the aceiderrt and the widow and daughter of the deceased were only 25 yeara emd @ years of age, we dirast that the entire enhanced amount of compensation in this appeal and the amount of interest shall be payaUetoSmt. Dharambai and Ku. Asha, widowand dau^iterof deceased Shtvaram and the parents of the deeeased he. Dasai Ram and Batmatr shalt not be entitled to get any share from the enhanced amountofcompen^rtton and the interestttrereon. 19) For the foregojng reasons, both the appeats i.e. M.A. Nos. 796/2005and 843/2005 Ttledby the appellan»ctaimantsfor enhancement of the compensatlon are srtlowed ta part. The compensatlon of Rs.1,77,( 0/- awENxled by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/- with further qyantified amount of interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of coinpensatlon of Rs.94,OOV-. 20) Respondent No.3 the Oriental (nsurance C(»n|MinyLimit«lis granted three morrths' tlme fiM-depositlng the trtal sum of Rs.1,(K,0(X)/- (Rs.94,000/- toiwapds enhaneai amount of ccmpensation + Rs.11 .OOOfotowards quantified aminant of inta-est on the enhanced amount of compensiatlon of Rs.94,OOQ/-) before the concemlng Clalms Tribunal. 8 21) The entire amount of Rs.1,05^00/- now payabte by respondent No.3 the Oriental Insuraroe Company Limited, shaN b& payable to appe^lants Smt. Dharam Bai anct Ku. Aste, the appellants in M.A. No. 84^/2005. 22) No order as to N^S. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu