HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAh/1: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Applicants nflisc. Appeal (C) No. 398 of 2008 1. Pawan Kumar Patel, s/o late Ramji Patel, aged about 34 years 2. Ku Fuleshwari Patel, d/o Pawan Kumar Patel, aged about 10 years 3. Ku Kusum Patel, d/o Pawan Kumar Patel, aged about 04 years Appellants No.2 & 3 are minor through his natural guardian father Pawan Kumar Patel All are ro/o Sher, Post - Kankera, P St Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants x <i 1. Sunil Kumar Sharma, s/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, aged about 42 years, through Chandu Lal Pandey, r/o Ward No.1 Lalwani Gali near Bus Stand, Mahasamund, P Stn., Tahsil & District - Mahasamund (CG) (Driver of offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing No.CG.06-A/8783) 2. Rekhram Bagh, s/o Nathuram Bagh, aged about 34 years, r/o Village & Post Office Bakma, P Stn Bagbahra, Tahsil & District - Mahasamund (CG) (Registered owner of vehicle Maruti Car bearing No.Cg-06-A/8783) ^ tfy:''l» >^;^--<^. MACNo.398of2008 r; x s 3 Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (CG) (Insurer of vehicle Maruti Car bearing No.CG-06-A/8783) 4 Manoj Kumar Agrawal, s/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, aged about 35 years, r/o Bagbahra, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) (At the time of accident possession holder owner of offending vehicle No.CG-06-A/8783) Appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for the appellants. Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ist (21st September,2011) 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for shori: 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.01.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 10/2007. 2) As against the compensation ofRs.15,75,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor daughters of deceasedSmt. Kaushalya Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death on 22.12.2006 on account ofthe injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on MACNo.398of2008 'v'y .'\ s 20.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,48,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 led before it held that deceased Smt. Kaushalya Bai died on 22.12.2006 on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 20.12.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver ofthe offending vehicle Maruti Car bearing registration No.C.G.-06-A/8783; as the above offending vehicle Maruti Car on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could nof 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.50/- per day; Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.4,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,48,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Smt.Kaushalya Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further MACNo.398of2008 Y directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Maruti Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- 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/Tribunal 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 examine as .to whether the compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) . As learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at MACNo.398of2008 Y Rs.18,000/- per annum, we have not examined that aspect of the matter. 11) The claimants' dependency, in ouropinion, has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the decease towards her personalexpenses. 12) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Deceased Smt. Kaushalya Bai was shown to be 30 years of age in her postmortem report. Her husband, claimant No.lPawan Kumar Patel was aged about 34 years on the date of the accident. In our opinion, multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.1,92,000/-. 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 ofconsortium to the husband. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Kaushalya Bai in the motor accident. 15) Th-e claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compehsation of Rs.59,000/-. MACNo.398of2008 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,07,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/-(Rs.59,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge padma "t