I OUT F HHATIH A DiVlSION BENOH CORAM: HON-’BLESHRIRAJEEV QUPTA C J & HON’BLE SHR! RANGNAWH CHANDRAKAR, J. i Misc. Appeal (C). No. 1&3 of 2006 I Applicants P Smt Jhul Ba: Widow of Sarju atel aged Gyears Mantram s/o Sarju atel ae 3 years P gd O - Swaram son; of Sarju Paiel,,aged 28 years. a ’ h Shivram s/d Sarju'Patel ged 26 years 'AH are rlo Village Maro Ponce Chowkl Mam Tahsll Nawagar a'district. Durg C.G. VERSUS Fuisai Gupta s/o Samay Lal Gupta, aged 42 years, occupation driver, r/o viliage Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, district BHaspur CG. Harjinder Singh s/o Harvansh Singh, age 45 years, occupation Business {owner of vehicle] r/o village \Telibandha Raiur district Raipur C G Branch Manager, United lndia insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Korba Stadium, T.‘P. Nagar, P.S. and Tahsil 8: District Korba C. Naresh Kumar w/o notknown ' Surieet Singh s/o not known aged 65 years Both are through Jeevan Bus Services, Pandri, Bus Stand Raipur, , near Hora Complex, RaiuréG Respondents HGH CR O CTSGAR T BILASPUR . p G. p 6. insurance Company the Oriental {nsurance Company, Jal! Road Kachahan Chowk Raxpur C G MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1?3 OF THE MOTOR , VEHICLES ACT,§1988 ‘ Present: Shn Vlmlesh Bajpal counseHorthe appeHants Shn H B Agrawal Semori Counse! wxth Smt Meera Jalswal counsel for respondent No 3 Shn Shaalendra Sharma counsel for respondent, No6 * , ‘ 0R6ER (28m February, 2911) ‘ The following order of the :Court was passed b Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This Is claimants appeal for enhancement of the ompensation awarded by the Addrtronal Motor Accrdent Claims Tnbunal, Bemetara (for short ‘the Tribunal’l vlde award dated 27 04 2006 passed rn Clalm Case No 86/2004 z 2) As against the compensation of Rs 12 7O OOOI- clarmed by the appellantsf claimants, unfortunate Widow and major sons of deceased Sarju Patel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 24 O6 2004 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs 77 000/- compensation along With interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filmo of the ctarm petition tlll the date of actual payment 3) I The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evrdenceuled I before It held that deceased Sanu Patel dred on account of the u lniuries sustained by hlm in the motor aoctdent on 24 O6 2004 lt”a ‘ y c i: the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle TrucL bearing registration No.C.G.O4—ZC/4152; as the above offendi g vehicle Truclr on the date of the accident was insured with therUnited India insurance Company Limited and the Insurance; Company could not establish any breach of the policy coniditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fled any appeai against the award the above findlnos recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,0001- per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.15,000./- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.iO,GOD/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 7, the compensation was worked out to Rs.70,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.77,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sarju Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.77,0001’- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ‘ ‘\ 4 w 6) Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the the deceased and in claimants’ evidence about the income of assessing his income at R5.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 7; and in awardin low compensation of l Rs.77,000/— only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned §enior Counsel with - l Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel fori respondent No.3, the United lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded b’y them, the compensation of Rs.77,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) ln a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the CourtsiTribunats should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances 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.77,000/— 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 Sarju Patel used to earn Rst 50/- per day by selling vegetables, the evidence ii led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence we do not find an fault in the approach of the Tribunal , y lit ‘ deceased. 11 ) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 5,000l— per annum ih theiyear 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideratipn. 12) Considering that deceased Sarju Patel, on the date of the accident, was aged about 55 years, we are of the opinion that he- could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per .day in the year 2004 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore,’ propose to re—compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs,2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3“ of Rs.24,DOD/— toWards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.1 6,000/— per annum. 14) . Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appeltants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in seiecting the lower multiplier of 7 whereas appropriate multiplier in the case would be 9. 15) Considering the age of the deceased and his widow, we are also of the opinion that multiplier of 9 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplierof 9 the compensation works out to Rs.1,44,QOO/—. 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 l in discarding the claimants’ eyidenoe arbout the income of the x 1 v i I , _ ‘ 'I rs _ / loss of consortium to the widow. The c‘aimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1 59;,0001- as compensation for the death of deceased Sarju Patel in ‘thie motor accident. 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to avoid any possible dispute between§ the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the insurance Company alone 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.82,000/- at RS.8,DOO/—. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in‘part. The compensation of Rs.77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanc/edto Rs.1 ,59,ooo/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,0uD/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82,\OOO/—. , 20) Respondent No.3 the United india insurance Company Limited is grantedthree months’ time for depositing the tota‘isum of‘ Rs.90,000/~ (Rs.82,’000!- towards enhanced amouht of compensation + Rs.8,000/. towards quantified amount of interest l on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.82‘,000/—) before ‘ the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21 ) No order as to costs. Sd/— Rhng'nath Chandi‘akar § ¥Sd/— hie us Judge r' Cf Jtice