^ .X-. fc ••"y HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applieants Misc. Appeal No.879 of 2006 1. Smt Kaushilya Bai Yadav, w/o late Bhuneshwer Yadav, aged about 29 years 2. Ghanaram Yadav, s/o Late Bhuneshwer Yadav; aged about 8 years ^ ! 3. Dhaneshwer, s/o Late Bhuneshwer Yadav, aged about 8 years 4. Lalit Kumar Yadav, s/o Late Bhuneshwer Yadav, aged about 6 years Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are represented by legal guardian motherappellant No.1 All resident of vill Khusarupali, PS Tumgaon, DisttMahasamund(CG) VERSUS 1. Jethuram, s/o Mohan Ram Paswan, aged about r/o vjll Nageshwer Nagar, Fingeshwer (Halbapara), Birgaon, Raipur, distt Raipur (CG) 2. Rajendra Shakhuja, s/o Anand Ram Shakhuja, aged about45 years, r/o B/504,OmComplex,Fafadih,Raipur (CG) 3. National Insurance Co Ltd., Branch Office No.1, Naween Bazar, GE Road, Raipur (CG) 1 y ^3^ '»!«<. •fep-y ^jy ^ ..,&- ^ Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicle Acfc Present: Shri CR Sahu and Shri CK Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri ShreekumarAgrawal.Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (28th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. i ] This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.12.2005, passed in ClaimCaseNo. 112/2005. 2) As against the compensationof Rs.16,20,000/-ctaimedby the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow arid minorchildren of deceased Bhuneshwer Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.03.2005, theTribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.2,39,900/- as compensatjonalong with interest @ 6% perannum 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 heldthe National tnsurance Company Limited,the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck-Trailor bearing registration No.CG-04-G44021iable to pay compensation to the claimants. "yy w ^ 4 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck-Trailor has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60/- per day and Rs. 1,800/- per month. By deducting 1/3Td of Rs. 1,800/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessedat Rs.1,200/- per month and Rs.14,400/- per annum. By multiplying the annualdependency of Rs.14,400/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was, worked out to -<_i-. - .. Rs.2,30,400/-. By awarding further sumof Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.2,39,900/- as compensation to the ctaimants for the death of deceased Bhuneshwer Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed paymentof interest on the above amount ofcompensation of Rs.2,39,900/- @ 6%per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitJon till the dateof actual payment. 6) Shri CR Sahu and Shri CK Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted thatthe Tribunal haserred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his incomeat Rs.60/- per day and Rs.1,800/-per month only; in selecting thelower multiplierof 16; in awarding low sum of Rs.9,500/- only under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,39,900/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the jnsurer offhe offending vehicle ss;:;'*^..:, ^ Truck-Trailor, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,39,900/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and 'proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, wMat is important is that, the compensation to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunals should bejust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examineas to whether tHe jcompensation of Rs.2,39,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. 10) True, the elaimants pleaded that deceased Bhuneshwer Yadav used to earn Rs.150/- per day by working in a plywood factory, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.150/- per day. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discardingtheclaimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.60/- per dayandRs.1,800/- per month inthe year 2005 is certainly on the lowerside and requires reconsideration. 12)' Considering that deceased Bhuneshwer Yadav wasaged about 35years on the date of the aecident, we areof theopinion that he could have easily eamed Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2005. We, therefore, tsgjstui ^o )unoiUE psynuenb jeLiyn^ I|)!M -/000'l'^'Z"sy ot psoueyue si leunqui eq) Aq pspjBMB -/006'6£'Z"sy jouoilBsuediuoosyi •ped u.i p9MO||e si uoiiesusdLuoo 94} ;o )U3iU93uei|ua joj S}UBLU!B|O /stUB||adde 94} Aq ps|y lesddE 341 'suoseaj CuioBejo^ SL|} jod (zi. '-/OOl'lS'syp uoflesuedutoo }o lunoiue paoueiiua QI^ uo isojstui ^o tunouje psyiiuenb spjBMO} -/006'S'sy JO uins jaqpn^ pepjBMe. 9JBsiueLUjB|3 941 (QI. 'lUeppOB JO}OLU Sl|} Ul ABpBA JSMLjseuniig psseeoep p 4}eap ai(i JojuoiiesusdLuoo se -/OOO'I.Z'Z"sy jo Luns |EIO} e SAICOSJ 0} pa|)!}U99iuo38q 'sniQ 'siueiuieio 341 'MopiM 94} 0} Luniijosuoo p sso| JQJ -/QOO'S'sy puBsieisa pssoi JQ^ -/ooo'S'sy .'sssuedxe |BJ9Un^ SpJBMO} -/OOO'S'Sy 9A1933J 0} p9|l!»usj9i|]jnj SJB siueiuiejo 341 '-/000'9S'Z"sy oi l"o S)|JOM uoiiesusdLuoo St)i9|. p jeiidiiiniu a\Q 4)iM -/000'91'sy 10 Aouepuedap |enuue 34} 6uiA|d!}|niu Ag (g\. •sjesA se-i-e uesMiaq dnojB 9Be 941 joj pequosajd uesq seq 91. p jejidiunLU uiejeijM tzt 33S 9 (600Z) ui pepodsj 'jeqtoue pue uosejodjoo Ijodsueji !4|aa'snsjaA sjaytQ pue diug) eiujOA B|JESJO eseo 94} ui ijnoQ xsdy 94t ^o Lunioip 941 p MSIA u.i steudojdde si 'uojuido jno ui 'sjeeA S£ }noqe p96e SBM ABpe^ J9ML|S9un4g pssesoep teqi Buuepisuoo |eunqui 91)} Aq paps|9s 91. jo J3i|di}|niu eiji (^i. •Lunuue jad -/000'91'sy »epsssasse si Aouspugdep .stueLurepaqi 'p9SB939p eLiuo sesuadxs leuosjed 8i)i spjeMo} -/ooo'tz'sy p e/i. |Bnsn 34) 6u.ipnp9p Ag (gt •lunuue JSd -/ooo't'Z'sy pue yiuoiu jsd -/000'Z'sy ve p9se903p e^joeLuooui QL^ Bui)|ei uoiiesusdLuoo eq) etndLuoo-sj 0} esodojd .rf '.<c'~ c:'"' ^ of Rs.3,900/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.31,100/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited js granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.35,000/— (Rs.31,100/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,900/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.31,100/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) JMo order as to costs. Sd/- CAiefJusiice Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge subbu :.^.i.'"SS;tSii^ a&.^i.