4 Misc. AQQeaI No.532 of 2004 Appenants 1 Claimants 2’ Resgondents Non—applicants Nepal Das, s/o Bolangidas, aged about 50 years Sandha Das, w/o Nepal Das, aged about 4O years Bandhna Das, d/o Nepal Das, aged about 16 years All r/o Umerkote (Orissa) VERSUS Raju Deori, s/o‘wRajmohan Deori, aged about 25 years, r/o Umerkote (Orissa) Sukhranjan Das s/o Keshavchand Das, rlo Umerkote (Orissa) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company, Main Road, Jagdalpur, Dist Bastar (CG) Present : The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. Shri AK Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ('l6‘“ December, 201 1) CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. ' HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectiog 173 of Motor Vehicles Act y IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU DIVISION BENCH H R 2 MA No.532 0f 2004 This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Trilounalp Jagdalpur .(for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 05.12.2003, passed in Claim Case No.24/2003. l 2) l As against the compensation of Rs.13,10,000/—, claimed by l G the appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Shankar Das by filing a claim petition under Section 166 u. of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 09.05.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,27,000/— as compensation to‘the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the 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 Shankar Das died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.05.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Mahindra Pickup Van bearing registratiOn No.CG-1 7H/0171; as the above offending vehicle Mahindra Pickup ‘ Van 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 Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondentsmhave not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. l 3 MA No,532 of 2004 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,500/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1 ,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 ,OOO/- per month and Rs.12,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the rhuitipiier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,20,000/-. $y awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/— under other heads, the Ttibunal awarded a total'sum of Rs.1 ,27‘000/— as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Shankar Das in the motor accident. The.Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Santosh Bharat, 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.1,5OOI- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,27,ooo/- only. y 7) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Mahindra Pickup Van, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,27,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ~4 MA N0‘532 of 2004 8) In a motor accident claim case what is imponant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesnof the case. it shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. i 9) 3 Now, we shali examine as to whether the compensation of Rst1,27,000/- awarded by. the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts a’nd circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shankar Das used to earn Rs.3,000/— per month by working as Conductor/ Cleaner on the Mahindra Pickup Van, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, 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.1 ,500/- per month in the year 2003 is certainly on the loWer side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Shankar Das on‘the date of the accident was aged about 25 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.80-90 per day in the year 2003 even by working as an un—skiiled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/— per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum. 13) As deceased Shankar Das on the date of the accident was unmarried, we deem it proper to deduct 50%. of the income of the 5 MA No.532 of 2004 deceased towards his personal expenses in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Vs ‘Mo‘hammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Deihi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.15,000/— per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.30,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 14) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that the claimants are parents and younger sister of the deceased is perfectly inline with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal 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 -1 0. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs,15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,50,000/—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses and ’Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate. Theyclaimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Shankar Das in the motor accident. 16) Considering that the unfortunate accident resulting in the death of deceased Shankar Das took place in the year 2003 and the present appeal is being finally decided in the year 2011, we go 6 MA No.532 of 2004 deem it proper to award quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,000/—. 17) For the. foregoing reasons, the appeai filed hy the appellants/ ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,27,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,00b/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three ‘months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs‘40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) (Rs.33,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,000l—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. . l ‘ Sd/- ”l N. K. Agarwal Chief Justlce Judge ‘ K IX a: ““11 Sd/T