A. P- /' OF w CJ. ,J. Mlsc.Appeai No. 950 of 2003 Ciaimants L \. c... Non-ciaimants 1. Smt. Inderbati, w/o late Mattheram Radheshyam, aged about 21 years, 2. Ku. Yogeshwari D/o. iate Mattheram, aged about 3 years, 3. Yogeshwar s/o iate Mattheram; aged about 1 year. Appeliant no. 2 & 3 are minor through the naturai guardian Mother inderbati, W/o. iate Mattheram Radheshyam. 4. Ramprasad S/o Bihari Dhlmer, aged about 45 years, 5. Gwaiin Bai w/o Ramprasad; aged about 42 years, Ai! resident of yiiiage - Mahud, present Ratnabandha, Dhamtari, Dlstt. Dhamtarl (C.G.) 1. Bashlr Khan, s/o Tabuj Khan, aged about 30 years, R/o Krishna Nagar, Kota, near Hotei Pikadeii, Ralpur, Distt. Raipur (G.G.) 2. Hariial S/o Kasturchand Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o Qtr. No. LJ.G. 126, 127, Janta Colony, Gudiy'ari, Distt. Ralpur (C.G.) 3. The Oriental 'nsurance Co. Ltd. Kachhari Chowk, Jaii Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) . 173 of Motor Vehicies Act ,,.^^^^, ^^..^y^ y ..^^ ^ u Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim Miya, counse! for the appeilants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri D.L. Dewangan, counset for respondent No.3. (08th The foiiowing order of the Court was by Th.is is claimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short; 'the Tribunal') vlde av^ard 29.04.2003, passed in Claim Case No.428 of 2002. 2) As aga.in.st the compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- claimed by the appeliants/ ciaimants, unfortunate wldow, mjnor chiidren and parents of deceased Mattheram @ Radheshyam, by fl'ing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death i.n the motor accldent on 08.10.2001, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.1.,68,400/- as compensation along wlth interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fliing of the claim petltion tiil the of actua' payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held that deceased Mattheram @ Radheshyam died 'on account ofthe Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 1.10.2001; the accldent occurred due to rash and negiigent drivina of the driver of the offendina vehicle Truck bearina J:'-ff;:^.. •~^y ""^'^^^^" ^ registratlon No. C.P.T. 2971; as the above offendlng vehicie Truck on the date of the accident was jnsured with the Orientai insurance Company Limlted and the Insurance Company couid not estabiish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the insurance Company vvas liabie to pay compensatjon to the daimants. 4) A.s the respondents have not fiied any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attain.ed fi'naljty. 5) The Tribunal the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.1,820/- per month assuming that he was getting work oniy for 26 days in a month. By deducting Rs.500/- per month towards the personal expensss of the deceased, the dalmants' dependencywas assessed at Rs.1,320/- per month and Rs.15,840/- per annum. By muitipiyjng the annual dependency of Rs.15,840/- with the muitiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,58,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a tota! sum -of Rs.1,68,400/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Mattheram @ Radheshyam in.the motpr accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,68,400/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fiiing ofthe cialm petition til! the date ofactua! payment. 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri 'Wasim s^iya, iearned counsd forthe appe!!ants submitted that the Tribuna! has erred In selecting ^, -. - -^ the iower muitipiier of 10 and in awarding iow compensation of Rs.1,68,400/-only. 7) Shri Abhishek Slnha and Shri D.L. Dewangan, iearned counsei for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,68,400./- awarded by the Tribunai 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 compensatiQn to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunais shouid be just and proper compensation in the and circumstances of the case. it shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. ' • 9) Now we sha!S examlne as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,68,400/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensatlon In the fac-ts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the daimants that deceased Nattheram @ Radheshyam used to earn Rs.200/- per day by seliing Fish and another Rs.1CSO/- Ky making Bidies, the evidence led in that behaif was not of ciinchlng nature. We, therefore, do not fjnd any Infirmity in the assessrnent ofthe incoms ofthe deceased bythe Tribunai at Rs.1,820/-permonth. 11) The ciajmants'.dependency aiso has been rightiy by the Tribuna! at Rs.1 ,320/~ per month and Rs.15,840/- per annum 1:; by deducting about 1/3rd of the incorne of the deceassd towards hls persona!expenses. 12) Nevertheiess, the multlplier of 10 seiected by the Tribuna! is certainly on the iower side. 13) Considering the age of the deceased; his widow, their chiidren and parents of the deceased; we are of the opinion that muitipiisr of 15 wouid be appropriate in the present c-ase. 14) By multlplying the annua! dependency of Rs.15,840/- with the muitlpiler of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,37,600/-. By adding further sum 6f Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunaj; the cialmants .become entitied to receive a tota! sum of Rs.2,47,600/- as compensation for the death of deceased Mattheram Radheshyam in the motor acc-ident. 15) Learned counsel for the partles submitted that vvith a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period for whlch the ciaimants are entltied t.o receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled in this appeai itseif. 1S) Considering aji the reievant aspects of ths matter, inciuding the deiay in disposai of the ciaim petition and the present appea!; and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be biamed for the entire de!ay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.79,200/- at Rs.7,800/-, ^\ fA ^ I %..i-y .-.-^^^;- 6 '(.. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal.fiied by the appeilants/ eiaimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed In part. The compensation of Rs.1,68,400/- awarded by the Tribuna! is enhanced to Rs.2,47,600/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,800/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.79,200/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the Orienta! Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.87,000/'- (RsJ9,200/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,800/- towards quant.ified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.79,200/~) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subb'u