HIGH COUR OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR $INHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1192 of 2005 Appellants {Claimants) 1. C.L. Sahu, Advocate son of late B.L. Sahu, aged abcut 51 years. 2. Kumari Swati Sahu, daughter of Shri C.L. Sahu, aged about 23 years. 3. SwapmlSahu son of ShnC L Sahu . aged about 16 years No.3 is minor through his next friend Shri C.L. $ahu, Advocate son of late B.L. Sahu. All residents of Samta Colony, Raipur. VERSUS Vijay Kumar, ‘son of Shri Ramabhilash Dubey, aged about‘36 years Driver, resident of Pahadi Chown, uudhiyari, Raipur. Raj Bahadur Mishra, wife of Satyanarayan Mishra, aged about 50 years, resident of near Waltair Railway Crossing Fafadih, Raipur. The New lndia Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. through Branch No.1 Divisional Manager, Raipur. 4. V. Krishna Rao, son of Shri Suryanarayan Rao, Driver aged about 26 years resrdent of Police Station Satu District Vijay Nagar Andhra Pradesh presently through Mohd NaSir Qureshi son of Mohd Gani Qureshi, Abdulla Goods Transport, Moudhapara, Raipur. Respondents (Non-applicants), T V 5. Mohd. Nasir Qureshi, son of d. Gani uresi, AbduHa Goods Tnsport Moudhapara, Raipur. 6. Natial Insuran Company vt. d, throg the Divisiona! Office, GE, Road, Rr. aipu 7. B.C.. Rau, son of Shri BA. aju, Kripa ransport, Patel Complex, Ring Road, Rip. l ! MISC. APPEAL UN§ER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ‘ resent: Shni Ks'hitiz harma, counse fr he ppeilants. None or respondts N. 1, 2, , 5 and 7. Shri Aay Mishra, couel fo rponent o.3. Shri aj Awasthi, counsel or resondent No.6. ORDER (11m January, 2011) in r o th s The followg orde f e Court wa passed by Rageev Gupta, C.J. The unortuate husband, daughter and s of eceased l mt. Shal Sahu are he applant beore us in ts appeal for e w “b h nhancement of the compensation aarded y the Tent dditiona Motor Accient Clais Tribunal, Raipur (for sort ‘the Al d m h T vi a at a ribunal’) de awrd ded 28.06.2005, passed in Clim Case Moss/2004. ) As gainst the compensatn of Rs.5,25,000/— claimed y te ‘ppenantsiaiané'fby ilin claim petition under Section 15 'o c, f a d Sm ahu in the motor acident on 07.04.201, wen Tata Suo S c 0 h m 2 a io 1 b h a'/cmt fg a 6 f the Motor Vehicles At or the deth of eceased t. Shail w” Moh Qh ra on ce P Lt. uh H j R T aur P S l o t a r f en o 4 i j ns r esd N R f p we l fn on d C l t els f hi i l A bearing registration No.M.P.23LA/1 827 in which she was travelling dashed against a stationary TruckV resulting in her death, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation long with interest @ 9% per annum in the event of the insurer’s ailure to pay the amountzof compensation within a period of one month of the passing of the award. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led l r f the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 07.042001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.M.P.23— LA/1 827; as the above offending vehicle Tata Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach 3 of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay l compensation to the claimants. 4). As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the» faward, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. The Tribunal holding that the claimants could not establish any independent income of the deceased awarded iump-sum of Rs.50,000/— as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of ihtérest on the above amount of compensation of Rs;50,000!~ @ 9% per annumin the event of the insurer‘s failure » . before it held that deceased Smt. Shail Sahu died on account of o y l ‘ j a f é i t I ‘ ‘ f 2 1 to pay the amount of compensation within one month of the passing of the award. 6) Shri Kshitiz Sharma, teamed counsel for the appeitants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased and in holding that the claimants could not establish the income of the 4 deceased as pleaded by them; and in awarding low compensation pf Rs.50,000/- only‘ 7) ‘ Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New i India insurance Company Limited,' insUrer of the offending l Evehicle Tata Sumo, on the other hand supported the award and ‘contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of- the deceased, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just. and proper compensation in the facts and ‘Vx. l lcircumstances of the present case. l l8) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 the lNational Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the Stationary :Truck also supported the award. ,9) ln a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just land proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the icase. lt should- neith’enbe a meager amount of compensation, nor 1a Bonanza. i / 1Q) Now we shau examine as to whether the compensation of } 1 cdmpensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the ctaimants pleaded that deceased Smt. Shait Sahu, us'ed to earn Rs.3,000/— per month from her profession of herbal treatment, no reiiable and cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunai to estabiish the apove profession of the deceased and the fac?of her income to the extent of Rs.3,000/— per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in L discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the l 125 Nevertheless, the Tribunal in the event of discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased, ought to have assessed her income either on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of. thfe Motor Vehicles Act or on its own estimate. Since, the Tribunal has failed in doing so, we propose to recompute the compensation after assessing the income of the deceased on our own estimate. 13) Since, deceased Smt. Shail Sahu was aged about 43 years and was residing in the city of Raipur, we deem it proper to assess her notional income at Rs.2,500/~ per month and Rs.30,000/— per ahnum. 1E4) ‘ As husband of the deceased is one of the claimants and is a practicing Advocate and the other‘tWo claimants being his daughter and son are primarily dependent on him, we deem it proper to Rs 50,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper i. e deceased. l deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal exp‘enses. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is asseseed at Rs 1 5,000/- per annum. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, her husband and chidren, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be aporopriate in the present case. 16)! By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1 5,000l— with the multiplier of 11, the compensation works out to Rs.1 ,65,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000l- for loss of consortium to the husband. The claimants; thus, become entitled l to {receive a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/— as compensation for the l death of deceased Smt. Shail Sahu in the motor accident. 17) 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 aniount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced l e l am‘jount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 18) Considering all the reievant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the ciaim 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 thef enhanced amount k6? compensation of Rs.1,30,000/— at Rs’.15,000/—. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeHantsJ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The oompensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1 ,80,000f- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.15,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,3o,ooox—. 29) Respondent No.3 ’The New India insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,45,000/— (Rs.1,30,000l— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.15,000l— towards quantified amount of interest ori the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,30,000/—) before l w ‘ the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No orderas to costs. rev/ear Sdl- Kamal‘ Sunil Chief Justice; Jud§://