HIGH COURT OF' CHHATTISGARH AT $ILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. ' HON’BLE sHRI $UNIL KUMm $INM, J. CORAM: Misc. Appeal No. 76 of 2005 1. Smt. Sita Bai widow of Sanat Kumar Sahu, aged about‘25 years, ’ 2. Khoman Sahu slo Iate Sanat Kumar ‘Sahu aged about 09 yeats, Ku. Tikeshwari dio Iate Swat Kumar Sahu, aged about 5 years, appncant No 2 & 3 ate reprasented by Iegai guardian mother applicant No1 Smt Slta Ba! smt. Shyma Bai w/o Kolhu Ram Sahu aged about 60 years; Kolhu Ram Sahu s/o late Purshottam Sahu, aged about-65 years. All are resident .of Vviuage Urla, P.S. Kumhari, Tah. & distt. Durg c.G. VERSUS Respondent; 1. Murat Singh slo Harisingh aged Non-applicants about 38 years, r/o Bilaspur Indore Transport Company Hirapur Ring Road N02 Ralpur Tah & Distt. ’RalpurCG 2, Bhajan Smgh Occupation Truck “Owner Rlo H R C Dewas Naka ‘IndoreM P The National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Indore Division No.1, Dr. Sarju Prasad ‘Marg, Gokul Das Hospitai Building, Indore, through Diw'sional Manager, Divisional Office, Power House, Bhilai Tah. & Distt. Durg C.G.‘ @ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDEE SECTION 173 OF THE MO! OR VEHICL§§ Ag I . . ‘ Present: Shri A.L. Singraui, counsel for the appenant; None for respondents NoJ & 2. ‘ " smi Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior couhsei with smi G.V. Krishna Rao. counsel for respondent No.3,” ORDER ‘ ' (4* March, 20’11) -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 Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.1 1 .2004, passed in Claim Case No.25/2004._V r2)” - a As against the compensation of Rs.45,20,000l— claimed by the appellants] claimantshunfortunate widow, minor childrenand ’ parents of deceased Sanat Kumar Sahu, by filing a clairn petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death inwthe motor accident on 10.12.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of r Rs.2,38,200/— as compensation along with interest Q 6% perV annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition tili the dateof actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny’of the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Sanat Kumar Sahu died on account of the injuriessustained by him in the motor accident on 10.12.2001; _ ‘ “the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ,r of the offending vehicle Truck beating registration N0.M.P.095 KA/2805; as the above offending vehicle Truck on Ehe date of the accident was insured with the National insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not estabiish any breach of the v policy conditions, the Insurance Company was iiable to pay r compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeaf 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.1,700l- per month and Rs.20.400l— per annum. By deducting ‘1/3'“ of Rs.20,400/- towards the personal' expenses of the v g deceasedl the claimants’ dependency wasassessed at Rs.13,6Q0/~ per annumr By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs;13,600/- with the multiplierof 17* the compensation was worked'out to Rs.2,31 ,200l-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,38,200/- as. compensation to the claimantsrfor the death of deceased Sanat Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on‘the above amount of compensation of i Rs.2,38,200l- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim v petition till the date of actual payment. 6), r Shri A.L. Singraul, teamed counsel for (the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the '7 claimants’ evidence about the income of'the deceased and in- w: .WF L ma, Q-L\;:MHK.W_ in ml assessing his income at Rs.1,7OOI- per month only; and in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.2,38,200/— only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, ieamed Senior Counsel with i Shri G.V. Krishna Rao, ieamed counsel for respondent No.3, the ' National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,38,200/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of‘the present case. ‘ 8) ' In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by theCourtslTribunals should'be just ‘ and proper compensation in the facts and'ciroumstances of~the case. lt should'neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. , 9) Now we shall examine as to Whether the compensation of, 'Rs.2,38,200/- awarded by the ‘Tribunat is just and proper v z compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case; 10). r True, the ciaimants pleaded that deceasedwSanat Kumar” Sahu used to eam Rs.5,Q00/- per month as driver,,no reliable and ‘ clinching-evidence was led before the Tribunat to establish the income ofthe-deceased to that extent. Neither the owner of the Tata Sumo nor any other representative of the owner was: examined before the Tribunal to establish thatthe deceased was getting salary of Rs.5,000l- per month. in this sweepf evidence, we 4. do not tind any fault in the approach of the Tribunal tn discarding ‘ :thectaimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased: ‘ 11) ; Nevertheless the Income of the deceased assessed by the ’ Trubunal at Rs 1 700l- per month in the year 2001 is certainly on the lower Side and requires reconsideration < 12) Consudenng that deceased Sanat Kumar Sahu was driver by occopation, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have I > v assessed his income at Rs.2,500/- per monthiand Rs.30,000/- per -' annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation staking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500l~ per month and Rs.30_,QOO/- per annum. 313) By deducting thee usual 1/3” of Rs.80,000/- towards the “personal expenses of the deoeased,'the ciaimants’ dependency Is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow, their children andxparents of the deceased, we are of the opinion thatf multiplier of 15 would beappropriate in the present case. I ' 15). By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.2D,000/‘ with the multiplier of 15Ithe' compensation works out to Rs.3;00,000I—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000l- towards: funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/-for loss .of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of R-s.3,15,000/- as compensation'for the death of deceased Sariat Kumar Sahu in the motor accident. 16) Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunat l bout the period for which theclaimants are entitied to receive g a interest on the enhanced amount .of compensation may he quantified in this appeal itseif. 17) Considering all the relevant aspeets of the matter; including ’ the deiay in disposai of the claim petition,‘ and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Qompanyalone is not to be blamed- for the entire delay in the matter,-we quantify the amount of interest .on the enhanced amount -of compensation of Rs.76,800/‘- at Rs.8,200/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal flied by the appelhnts/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed‘in part. The compensation of Rs.2,38,200l~ awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,15,000l- with further quantified amount of interest ’of Rs.8,200/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/—. r 19) Respondent No.3 the National insurance-Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.85,000l- (Rs.76,800!- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,200/- towards quantified amount of interest «on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/~) before interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of l i i i a, WW”: the conceming Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/— t Chief Justice y: sdi Sunil Kuma" 3m“? Judge :1 . K subbu \ ,