HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B§LASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORANI: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 805 (if 2003 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.‘ 1988 Present: Shri A.L. Singraulfcounsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (05m January, 2011) a. The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C..J. Appellants 1. Smt. Lekhni Bai w/o Kartikram Pal Claimants aged 4O years, House Wife. 2A Smt. Laxmi Bai w/o Nanhuram Pal aged about 62 years Both are R/o. Shitalpara Arang Tah. Arang, distt. Raipur, C.G. VERSUS Resnondents 1. Tasavar Khan s/o. Bahadur Khan Non-appiicants Jeep Driver R/o Maudhapara, Raipur. Raish Khan s/o Hashim Khan, Jeep Owner, R/o Maudhapara, Raipur. 3. The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. throught Divisional Manager, Katchehri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, C.G. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the ompensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated ‘14.o7.2003, passed in Claim Case No.02/2oos. 2) Theappellants/ claimantsLunfortunate widow and mother of deceased Kartikram Pal claimed compensation of Rs.28,50,000/-, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 14.09.2002 when he was dashed by the offending vehicle ’Jeep bearing registration No. CG-04/ZA-2287. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Kartikram Pal died on account of the ‘injurres sustained by him in the motor accrdent on 14 09 2002 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep; as the above offending vehicle Jeep, on the date of the accident was insured with the Orie'ntai 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. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) ‘The Tribunal assessed the income of the ‘deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the c Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3’“ of Rs.1 5,000/-, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 0,000/- per annum. By multiptying the annual dependency .of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,37,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kartikram Pal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,37,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, 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 annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,37,000/- only. 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the . income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,37,00D/- awarded by the Tribunal is just‘and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) ln 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 shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. v 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/~. awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Kartikram Pal used to earn Rs.78/- per day by working as Chowkidar in Kisan Rice Mill. The claimants further pleaded that in addition to that, the deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/— per annum from agriculture. As the claimants did not adduce any documentary evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agricultural land at ‘all, the Tribunal has rightly not believed the evidence about the income of the deceased from agriculture. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Kartikram Pal was aged about 5O years on the date, of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.75-85/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/— per ' month'and 'Rs.30,000/— per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 113'“ of Rs.30,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 14) l Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and mother, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/— with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.2,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000!- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,0C)O/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become ' entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,35,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Kartikram Pal in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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 appeai itself. 17) Considering all 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 atone cannot be blamed ‘ for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. /\; a V M M 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! filed by the appenants/ V claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,35,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,000/—. .19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,05,000/— (Rs.98,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. l 20) No order as to costs. ' w g I, ‘ 4x ”a l ‘ _ Sdl- L Sd/- l ._ ~ sunil Kumar Sinha’ Chief Justice Judge /’ l f ‘ i r ‘e‘\"«