HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: Appellants Claimants HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI G. MINHAJUDDIN, J. Misc. Appeal No. 295 of 2005 Mayadhar, s/o Pakalu Kenwat, aged about 60 years, Occupation Agriculture Iabrour Vishram, s/o Mayadhar, aged about 27" - years, Caste Kenwat, ccupation Agriculture iabrour O Both the resident of village Checharapali, Police Station Kashkol, District — Raipur (CG) VERSUS Ax k Manohar @ Munna Bariha, Tularam, ,resident of Village Checharapali, Police Station Kashkol, District Raipur (CG) Punit Ram Nayak, s/o Anand Singh Nayak, aged about 50 years, resident of Village — Checharapali, Police Station Kashkol, District -— Raipru (CG) The oriental insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, GE Road, Raipur, District Raipur(CG) Memo of appeal under; Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act s/o Respondents Non-Claimants Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Shri AK Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. 2 MA No.295 of 2005 ORDER (17th August, 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 2nd Additional Motor Accident‘ 1 Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 16.12.2004, passed in Claim Case No.31/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate husband and major son of deceased Prembai by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 03.01.2004, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date‘of actual payment. a 1 , 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Prembai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 03.01 .2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.CG- 04/ZD/6084; as the above offending vehicle Jeep 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. ’Ki ‘\ ”7;” i 3 MA No.295 of 2005 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.600/— per month. By deducting 1l3rd of Rs.600/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.400/— per month and Rs.4,800/- per annum. The Tribunal thereafter considering that the minimum amount g W payable under ‘no fault'liabilityiin ‘a death case was Rs.50,000/—, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants for the death of deceased Prembai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. '« 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.50,000/- only. f... 7) Shri AK Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.50,000/— awarded by the Tribunal in the peculiar facts and Circumstances of the present case, is just and proper compensation. 8) Deceased Prembai was shown to be 60 years of age in her postmortem report. The claimants are her husband Mayadhar, aged about 60 yearsJa/ndberxmajor‘son Vishram, aged about 27 \ " ,JV" ‘ l 'i .‘ \‘ 4 MA No.295 of 2005 years. The claimants pleaded that deceased Prembai used to earn Rs.100/— per day and Rs.3,000l— per month. The claimants and the deceased were residing in a small village in the Tehsil of KasdOI in Raipur district. The income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.600/- per month and Rs.7,200/— per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side. The Tribunal while discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the, notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule. As deceased Prembai was aged about 6O years on the date of the accident and her husband Mayadhar was also shown to be 60 years of age in the claim petition, the appropriate multiplier in the case 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 would have been 9. The claimants were further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the husband. 9) The compensation of Rs.50,000/— 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 enhanced suitably. 10) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that furtheraward of Rs.51,000/— inclusive of interest component on,the enhanced amount of compensation \ Jae/V ‘ \ 5 @O MA No.295 of 2005 would make the compensation of Rs.50,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12) Respondent No;3 theOtiental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.51 ,OOOI- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. l Sm, . l s G. Minhajuddin Sd/— \ Judge Chief Justice err/1"““l ‘ padma