<9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DNISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 803 of 2003 Appellants 1. Smt. Nandini Bai w/o Nathuram Ciaimants Sahu aged about 40 year, housewife. 2. Ku. Jamuna d/o late Nathuram Sahu aged about 14 years. Ku, Bhuneshwari d/o late Nathuram Sahu aged about 11 years. 4. Ku. Priti d/o late Nathuram Sahu aged about 6 years. 5A Ku. Pooja d/o late Nathuram Sahu aged about 3 years. 6. Smt. Leela Bai W/o. Kamta Praead Sahu aged 63 years, Appellant no. 2 to 5 are represented through legal guardian mother Nadinibai, L’ All are R/o Hanuman Nagar, Mathpara, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents 1. Tlkaram S/o. Shobharam Gond, ‘ Non-applicants aged 45 years, Truck Driver r/o. Blkebahara, P.S. & Distt. Li Mahasamund, Hall ~ Mumak o ' Shlvnagar Changorabhatha, Raipur § (C.G.) M/s. Danteshwari Transport through Manager, M/s. . Banteshwarl g transport, 113, Trimurty Chowk, ' Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) x 3. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisiona! Office No.2, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECT!0N 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the appeuants. Shri Malay Kumar'Bhaduri, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. None for respondent No.3 though served. ORDER (20m January, 201 1) 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, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide’ award dated 15.03.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 21/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs‘40,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughters and mother of deceased Nathuram Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 22122001 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident on 20.12.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 Nathuram Sahu died on 22.12.2001 on s (g account of the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.12.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Truck bearing registration No.M.P.23-DA/3879; as the above offending vehicie Truck 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 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. By deducting 1/3'“ of Rs.15,000/-, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rsi10,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,0DO!-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,30,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nathuram Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,30,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the s 2t ciaimants’ evidence about the inceme of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,00D/- per annum only; in not awarding any sum towards funeral expenses; loss of estate; and loss of consortium to the widow; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.’l ,30,000/- only. 7) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Bus also supported the award. 8) ln a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the h x compensation to be awarded by the Courtsfl‘ribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a ‘Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Nathuram Sahu, used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in a Private Firm, namely, Muskan Traders, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepant. Though, the salary certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal (Ex.D/3) revealed the ' annual income of the deceased at Rs.45,000/., AW2 Anil Khubchandani, proprietor of said Muskan Traders deposed that Rs.5,000/- was being paid as salary to the deceased. The Tribunal finding it difficult to reconcile the discrepancy between the saiary *\/ l‘ , éasily earne Rs.70-75/- (abour. By dedlicting the usua! 1/3” of Rs.24,00Q/— personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants’ de assessed at Rs.16,000/~ 15,) towards the pendency is per annum. 16; d expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.5,000!— towards loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, ihus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,23,000l— as compensation for the death of deceased Nathuram Sahu in the motor accident. 17) Considering ali the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000l- at Rs.8,000f—. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appealfiled by the appellants! claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The‘compensation of Rs.‘l,30,000!— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,01,000/— (Rs.93,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.93,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. .p/ ' i, z , Sd/~ la Sunil Kumar Sinha y . ~ Chief » Sdl- JllStice _ I . l Jr\g fr ‘ Jud e l l \a r i l i l .