HIGH’COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1 1 33 of 2005 I ,«N I Appellants 1. Bhuksai, slo Bhogel, caste Gond Claimants aged about 50 years, occupation agriculture. 2. Ghuran Singh, s/o Bhuksai, aged about 23 years, occupation agriculture. 3. Parantu Singh, slo Bhuksai, aged about 21 years, occupation agriculture. 4. Devratan, slo Bhuksai, aged about 14 years, minor through guardian father appellant No.1. All r/o village Pampapur, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Gupteshwar Pandey, s/o Dwarika Non-applicants Prasad Pandey, aged about 42 Driver years, r/o. Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S.’ & Tahsil Surajpur, distt. Surguja C.G. Owner Smth Vidya Shukla, w/o Rakesh Shukla, aged about 28 years, occupation housewife, r/o. village Ramanujnagar, P.S. Ramanujnagar, tah. Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. Insurer 3 United India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch‘Manager, Branch Office near Rammandir, Ambikapur district Surguja C.G. fro, @ M.A. No. 1133 of 2005 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh; counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (06th September, 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, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 12.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.57/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and children of deceased Tilkunwar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 12.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- 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 Tilkunwar died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 12.04.2004; the ‘ a accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15/C/7108; as the above offending motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company I J. 3 / M‘A. No. 1133 of2005 Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions,'the Insurance Company was Iiable to pay compensation to the ctaimants. 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 considering the age of the deceased and the ‘claimants and the fact that the deceased in fact was dependent on her husband and major sons, awarded a lump-sum of Rs.50,000/— as compensation for her death and Rs.10,000/— towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Tilkunwar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/— @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the compensation in the prescribed manner of first assessing the income of the deceased and then the claimants’ dependency and thereafter by multiplying the' annual dependency with the appropriate multiplier; and in awarding lump—sum of fl Rs.60,000/— as compensation to the claimants. a 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United lndia Insurance Company Limited, the in‘surer of the offending motorcycle, l l F M.A. No. 1133 of 2005 \5.‘ I /‘/ ‘ on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any definite and regular income of the‘ deceased, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) in a motor accident ciaim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunais should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Tilkunwar used to earn Rs.5,000/— per month from stitching clothes and selling milk, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. ln 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 deceased. 11) Nevertheless, theTribunal has certainly erred in not assessing the compensation payable to the claimants in the prescribed manner of first assessing the income of the deceased; the dependEncy of the claimants on the income of the deceased; then selecting the appropriate multiplier; and by multiplying the annual dependency ‘ with the said multiplier; and in awarding lump-sum compensation of 5 M.A. No‘ 1133 of2005 Rs.60,000/— inclusive of Rs.10,000/— towards funeral expenses. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation in the prescribed manner. 12) Considering that deceased Tiikunwar was aged about 50 years, we are of the opinion that she could have easily earned Rs.60-70/- per day even by working as an unskilled Iabour in the village. We, therefore, assess her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that in the present case the claimants are husband and two major sons of deceased Tilkunwar and both the major sons were having their independent income from agriculture and the only claimant who can said to be dependent on the' income of the deceased may be claimant No.4 Devratan, her minor son aged about 14 years, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimants’ dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.12,000/— per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 14) Considering the age of the deceased, her husband and minor son, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier_of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,32,QOO/—. 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 to l i </ ‘ 6 M.A. No. 1133 of 2005 receive altotal sum of Rs.1,47,000l— as compensation for the death of deceased Tilkunwar in the motor accident. 16) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/—. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. 'The compensation of Rs.60,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1 ,47,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of RS.87,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the United lndia Insurance .Company ’ Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.951000/— (Rs.87,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. subbu 19) No order as to costs.‘ i sw— Sd/' . l N. K. Agarwai Chief Justlce ‘ Judge