^.P.T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 520 of 200^ ^^. 1-.4 Appellants Applicants \^» 1. Smt. Kera Bai, wd/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 25 years, 2. Ku. Biswantin, d/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 13 years, 3. Ku. Rupvati, d/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 11 years, 4. Ajay Kumar, s/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 9 years, 5. Ku. Jyoti, d/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 9 years, 6. Ku. Shewta, d/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, aged about 9 months, Appellant No.2 to 6 are minors, through natural guardian mother Kera Bai, wd/o late Shivdas Gaikwad, All r/o. vi!lage Mudiyadih, P.S. & Tahsil Palarj.djstrict RaipurC.G. Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Balmika Behra, s/o C. Behra, r/o. Bhaturoad Bargarh, district Bararh, (Orissa) (Driver vehicle NO.C.G.-4-J.3044) Ashok Kumar Agrawal, s/o Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal, r/o. Nitin Jwelers, R.S. Shukla Road Halwai Line, Raipur C.G. (Owner of offending vehicle) ^ 1 %sssyih 1 1, .... ' ./ v.s^ MACNo.520of200^ 3 National Insurance Company, Divisional Office Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. (Insurer of the offending vehicle) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Harsh Mahant, counsel for the appellants. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER yth (07tnSeptember,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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.11.2008, passed in Claim Case No.40/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 17,21,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate v/idow and minor children of deceased Shivdas Gaikwad, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident onl 0.10.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,78,4007- as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 Shivdas Gaikwad died on account of MACNo.520of200^f^ "2-fc the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.10.2007 involving the motorcycle of the deceased and Truck bearing registration No.CG-04/J-3044; the deceased hjmself who was driving the motorcycle and the driver of the above Truck were equally responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% each; as the above Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.2,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,700/- per month and Rs.20,400/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,400/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,46,800/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.3,56,800/-. As the deceased himself was found responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the Truck was directed by the Tribunal to pay 50% of Rs.3,56,800/- i.e. Rs.1,78,400/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Shivdas Gaikwad in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of ,-;rt^^> ^ 4 MACNo.520of200^^ '-7 Rs. 1,78,4007- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Harsh Mahant, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased himself also equally contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,500/- per month only; in deducting 1/3rd ofthe income ofthe deceased in place of 1/4 towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased; in selecting the lower multiplier of 17; and in assessing/awarding low compensation of Rs.3,56.800/- / Rs.1,78,4007- only to the claimants. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the manner of the accident does not leave any room for doubt that the deceased himself also equally contributed to the accident; the compensation of Rs.3,56,800/- assessed by the Tribunal and Rs.1,78,400/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, are just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) 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 shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. ^s^ ^ MACNo.520of200/^ -2^ 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Shivdas Gaikwad, who was himself driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident, responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, it is apparent from the evidence available on record and the site-plan/spot-map filed by the claimants before the Tribunal that the accident occurred when the deceased was overtaking the Truck on the Highway. It appears that the deceased/ motorcyclist while overtaking the Truck came in front of the moving Truck and the unfortunate accident occurred. If the motorcyclist while overtaking the Truck maintained safe distance from the moving Truck, he could have very well avoided the accident. In this factual scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased motorcyclist himself also equally contributed to the accident. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,56,800/- assessed by the Tribunal / Rs.1,78,400/- awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Shivdas Gaikwad, used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month as electrician, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.8,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the .^y^" '•<'*f, fe^ ^ •^....^././ ^ %^"' ./^ '%^-^....:^ MACNo.520of20^^ •^ deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 11) Nevertheless, the deduction of 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses requires reconsideration as there are as many as six claimants in the case who all were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. 12) In our considered opinion, 1/4th of the income of the deceased ought to have deducted by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses 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. We, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.22,500/- per annum by deducting 1/4th of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 13) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Shivdas Gaikwad was shown to be 27 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (supra) prescribes the multiplierof 17 for the age group between 26-30 years. 14) By multiplying the annuat dependency of Rs.22,500/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.3,82,500/-. 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 of consortium to the widow. The MACNo.520of20qjEf ^\ ^o total compensation, thus, works out to Rs.3,97,500/-. As the deceased himself also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants now are entitled to receive 50% of Rs.3,97,500/- i.e. Rs.1,98,7507- from the insurer ofthe Truck. 15) The claimants are further awarded Rs.2,650/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,350/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. While maintaining the finding about the contributory negligence, the compensation of Rs.1,78,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,98,750/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,650/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,350/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.23,000/- (Rs.20,350/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,650/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,350/-) before the concerning CIaims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu