i'S "%. ~fe. '"t & *e'' 5* I-C^ !y HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. HaM'BLESHR! SUNK. KUMAR SINHA, J; Appellants Ciaimants Respondents Non-Applicants Misc.Apoeal No.438of20<» 1. Smt. Parvati Baf, Wd/o late Parm^hwar Nishad, 22 yrs. 2. Ku. Shraddha, D/o late Parmeshwar Nishad, 1 yr. Through Natural Guardian, and Mother app. No.1, Smt. Parvatl Bai. 3. Smt. Saguna Bai, wd/o late Hiro Ram, 55 years. All Wo. vill. Shankar Nagar, Nayapara, Rajim, Teh. Rajim, distt. Raipur, (Chhatti^arh) Versus 1. Ghanshyam Sahu, S/o. Hiraman Sahu, R/o Vilt. Bel Tukari, Teh. Rajim, Dis&. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Kaushal Kumar Patel, S/o Gemlram Patel, 50 years, R/o. vill Sivarl, Teh. Balod Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Offtee Parakh Bhavan, Station Road Durg, Dh/. Office infront of Projed Automobiles Bhilai, distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). Mj«:ellaneousappeal utider Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Vikas Shrivastava, teamed counsel for the appellants. Shri C.K. Sahu, leamed counsel for respondents No.1&2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, leamal Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (19th August, 2010) The foliowing order of the Gourt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Molor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vfde aware) (teted 03.10.2002, passed in claim case No.231CICX)2. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,(XX)/- claimed by the appellants/ ctaimants, unfortunate widow, minor daighter and mother of deceased Parmeshvrar Nishad by ffling a claim petftion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 31.03.2001 , the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,06,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of flling of the ctaim petttion tUI the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunat on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence ted before it held that deceas«lParmeshwar Nisted died on aecount of the injuries sustained by him in the motcn' acddent on 31.03.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offencNng vehicte Truck bearing registration No. C.P.T.2667; as the offaiding vdiiele Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the New India In^irance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the clalmants. •W[ 4) As the respondents have not fited any appeatagalnst the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attatned finatity. 5) The Trtbunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,300/- per month assuming that the deceesed was getting work only for 26 da^ in a month. By deductfng Rs.500/- towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was asse^ed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,KX)/- per annum. By multiplymg the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was wcwked out to Rs.96,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunat awrarded a totat sum of Rs.1,06,000/- as compensatton to the daimants fty the death of deceased Parmeshwar Nishad in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount ofcompensatlon of Rs.1,06,000/- @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petftion till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Vikas Shrivastava, teamed counsel for the sppellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, teamed Senhw Counsel with Shrt Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand sut^orted the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is jusl and proper compensation in the fects and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri C.K. Sahu, leamed oounset for res(»ndenteNo. 1 & 2, also supported the award. 9) In a motor accldent clalm case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awareled by the Courts/Tribunate should be just and proper compen^tion in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to wh^her the coropensation of Rs.1,e»;000/- awarded by the Tribunal is ju^ and proper compensation fn the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) The claimants pleaded that deceased Parmeshwar Nishad was aged about 26 years and used to eam Rs.100-150/- per day as Porter/ Loader. Ttie unfortunate accklent wherein decesffied Parmeshwar Nishad tost his tife took place in the year 2001. In our opinion, the deceased could have easily eamed Rs.70-80/- per day even as an unskilled tabour in the year 2001. Deceased Parmeshwar Nishad was aged about 26 years on the darte of the accident and his widow claimant Smt. Parvati Bai was shown to be 22 years of age, whereas their minor daughter Ku.Stiraddha was aged 1 year only. Claimant No.3 Smt. Saguna Bai is widowed mother of deceased Parmeshwar Ntehad who was wholly dependant on the deceased. 12) The compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanoed suitabty. 13) Considering all the retevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further awaret of Rs.1,50,000/- inclusive of inter^t component on the enhanced amount of <x»npensation witl make the compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, Is allowed in part. The appellants/ claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of comperisation, in addition to the sum of Rs.1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15) Respondent No.3 the New India tnsuram»Company Limited is granted three months' time for depreitfng the tcrtal sum of Rs.1,50,000/- before the conceming claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. ___— Sd/- SdA ^ Sunil Kumar Sinha ChiefJustice i )" Jud8e padma