•^ ^•s^. ^ «3Gii> -^^ ^.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Apiwal No.1202 of 2003 Apoellants Respondents 5 Raj Kumar, Son of late Shri Gajendra Kumar, aged about 8 years, Occupation Student minor through Natural Guardian Fuleshwari Devi, Wife of Shri Vishwanath Choubey, aged about 50 years, occupation : House-wife, resident of beside Sri Parasnath Singh, Advocate Deviganj Ward, Ambikapur, Distt: Surguja (CG) Fuleshwari Devi, Wife of Shri Vishwanath Choubey, aged about 50 yeare, Occupation : House-wife, resident of beside Shri Parasnath Singh, Advocate, Deviganj Ward, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) Rajeh Kumar Choubey, Son of Vishwanath Choubey, aged about 25 years, Occupation: Painter Sunita Choubey, Daughter of Vishwanath Prasad Choubey, Aged about 27 years Kamla Choubey, Daughter of Vishwanath Prasad Choubey, Aged about 35 years Appellant No.3 to 5 are residents of Deviganj Ward, Near Clerks' quarters Ambikapur, District Surguja - CG VERSUS Mangal Singh Khurana, Son of Shri Arjun Singh, aged about 50 years, Occupation : Business, resident of main road, Takhatpur, Pottce Station : Takhatpur, Police Station : Takhatpur, Distt: Bilaspur (CG) 2 p^ 1:81| '!8 Maniram Sharma, Son of Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 25 years, Occupation : Driver resident of Magarpara, Bilaspur, Distt : Bilaspur (CG) The New India Insurance Company through : Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt: Bilaspur (CG) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act. 1988 Present : Shri VK Pandey and Shri TR Chandrakar, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (9"*November, 2010) 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 Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amblkapur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.12.2002, passed in Claim Case No.5/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- clajmed by the appetlants/claimants, unfortunate son, mother, brother and sisters of deceased Vimla by filing a claim petition under Section 166 oHhe Motor Vehlcles Act for her death in the motor accident ^-^.^ BlStlW it (^ on 05.07.1999, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.1,67,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the 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 Vimla died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accldent on 05.07,1999; the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent drivlng of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.MP-26-E/4464; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limit«j, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeat 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 Seetion 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 173rd of Rs.15,000/- towanJs the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimante' dependency was ass6ssed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- wlth the muttiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,®),000/-. By awarding further syiEp of Rs.7,0(X)/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,67,000/- as compensation to the claimants Tor 4 i:/ ^e? -^J^) SWS 181 :!,:.(.S»e;;'E« the death of deceased Vimla in the motor accident. The Tribunal, further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri VK Pandey and Shri TR Chandrakar, leamed 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 her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,67,0001- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior counset wfth Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not esteblish any definite income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,67,0007- 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 / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compereation, nor a bonanza. 9} 'Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,67,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) Jrue, the claimants pleaded that deceased Vimla used to earn Rs.2,500-3,(XX)/- per month by selling vegrtables, the g^. 5 !%f r's:asiii! evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not findany fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceasal assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 1999 is certainty on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.18,00)/- towards the personal expens^ of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age of the deceased, her son and mother, we are ofthe opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- wtth the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. The ctaimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,(XX)/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Vimla tn the motor accident. .^ 16) A further sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded to the claimants as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of Interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,(X)0/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.23,00)/- towanJs enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- QuefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma