•'i. ^^ ^^^TeSoJO Claimants iLI RAJEE RiSUNILi ,J. Misc. Appeal No. 450 of 2003 1. Smt. Ariusuiya w/o late Shyamlal, aged about 22 years, . 2. Sanjay s/o late Shyam Lal aged about2years, Resident of village Pirda, Post Thana : Tumgaon, Tahsil Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund(G.G.) . (Appelianf No. 2 is jn guardianship under aRplicant No.1) VERSUS ResBondents i win .">!> 1. Dr. SaiuddinRaji, agedabout yeare, s/o late Bahabuddinkaji r/o Ward No.5, Mahasamund, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Baba @ Mtid. Iqbal, s/o Abdul Karim, aged about 38 years, r/o Phool ChowK, Raipur(C.G.) Driveroi;VehideNo.[Vt.O.T.-9124 3. BranCh; Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd. Katehary Chowk, Madina Manjil, Raipur, Distt. Raipur 4. Lekhram S/o Rameshwar Patel,' ageci about58years, ••*• ' '-..:'•.•• . • • • • ' • ' • ••' 5. Shakyntala- W/o |Lekhram Patet, aged about52 yeare, i Respondent/NQ. 4 &S.IS resident.of ^itlage Pirda, Ttjiana Ti.imgaon, Tahsil Mahaseimijnd, F^^^ d^ Nahasamunci(C.G.I)^::;; "%T ^yw^:m^^ iB3i^^dlJBijJNfc@lU«'l"'» ^M •ff^'f. "••tte 11 11 llllllt! Misc. Appeal underSection 173 ofMotorVehiclesAct Present: Shrj Vivek Rathore, counsel fortheappellants. Shri Sudhir'Agrawal and Shn P. Dutta, counsei for respondent No.3. (15th November, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by ta,C.J. . • ,: ' ' : ' • The ynfortunate widow and minor son of deceas^d Shyam Lal are the appeltants before us in.this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Mahasamynd (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 06.Q2.20Q3, passed in Glaim Case No. 17 of 2001. 2) As against the compensation^of Rs.6,68,000/- claimed by the appeliants/ elaimants, unfortunate parents, widow and mirior son of deceased Shyam Lal byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 11.03.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.2,49,800/- as compensatiQn along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) 'The;'Tribunal on a' close scrutiny of •the erttire evidence, led before it held that deceooed Shyam Lal died on account pf the injuries sustained iby him jn the motor acciderrt op 11.03,2001; the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent clriving'of the driver 6f the offendiflg veiiicle Mini Bus:bearing registratiori Nio:M.Q,'T'^/9124; !•;'.:•.. as the above offendingjfflbfcle Mini Bus on tKedate ofthe aecident •T——-*T SBSn*nBaiSi ••.&SE.S j3 ^•s, 2,.Ji?y ";ts^SiS^ :il iilkli was insured with the Orienta! 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. . 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.60/- perday; Rs.1,800/- per month and Rs.21,600/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased tQwards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.14,400/- per annum. Bymultiplying the annual.dependencyof Rs.14,400/-withthemultiplier6f17,thecompensationwaSworked out to Rs.2,44,800/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,49,800/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Shyam Lal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of intereston the above ampunt of compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- 9% per annum from the dafe offiling of the claim petition tiil the date ofactual payment. 6) Shhi Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellanife submitted that the Tribynal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' 1 evidence about the income 6f the Ideceased and in assessing jhis income at Rs.60/- per dayy-Rs.1,8QO/- per mQnth and ^:' '<:' ..i-"!'^^'^^' g '•<i£SiSi£s2 il-j 1: f Rs.21,600/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,49,8QO/-only. , 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.Sthe Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 6n the other hand, supported the award and contended that t'ne compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor acciderrt'claim case, what is important'is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the ease. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether t'ne compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- 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 Shyam Lal used to earn Rs.150/- per day as Taiior, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish his income to that extent. Jn this state of evidenGe, we do not find any fault in the approaeh of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evidence N abouttiieincomeofthedeceased. ; 11) Nevertheless, the income otthe deceased assessed by the Tribwial at Rs;60/- per.day;, Rs.1,8QO/- per nnonth and Rs.21,600/- - j; J'lJ' llilBH'l ;:1)Ei;?!) ""*Sfs^iaHB®7R^^^^ •luspfooe jOtouj eqt ui |eTuTBALjs psseeoep p 1 ' . •" : : • ; ! 1 ' ; ' ! . i))esp 8L|tJcy uoiiesusdLuooSe-/ooo'ZS'S'sypiuns|eiQiB sAiaoai o^ p3|}!tye sujoosq; 'snyi 'stUBUuieio sqt *- opi 9^0} uunlyosuoo p ss6| Jcy -/ooo^S sy PUB '31E1SS .10 ssp| Jcy -/ooo'9'sy '^ssusdxe lejsun^ spjeMOl -/O00'9'sy 8A!308J 01 Paltilu3 -isyyn.t SJB s}UBLU!e|o etll '-/OOO'ZZ'Z'sy oi4nos>|jom uoitesusdujoosy) '^i, jo jsiiditinui 34} q}iM -/OQO'9 l-'sy 10 Aouepusdsp |enuue aq} 6u!A|d)i|nuu Ag '(g |. •sseo lusssjd sqt ui etEudojddB si 'uoiuido jno ui 'iBunqyi SL|I Aq papsias ^ p J9i|d!)|nLU 'uos jisqi puB mopiM siy 'pBseeosp 341 p eBe syi Suyspisuoo (91, •i.unuue jsd -/oOQ'QI.'sy ie psssesse si Aouspusdsp .siueiuieio 34) 'pssesosp 3t)i p sssuedxs teuosjed 3iQ spjeMO} -/ooo'frZ'sy jo pjgyi, rensn .sqi .Buipnpsp Ag (fri. •Lunuue jsd -/000't'Z'sy pue y^uoal jed -/000'Z'sy le paseeoep sytjo etuooui eqi BUQ{E\ uojiesusdtuoo 94} etndujooej o} esodojd 'ejo.tsjaiit 'SAA "-inoqei psii^sun ue SB 6u!>|jO Aq uaAe Aep jsd -/OZ.'sy psujes A|ise8 BABL) p|np3 sjeaA fZ tnoqe psBe ueiu BunoA UB 6uiaq |E~1 LueAqg P8se303P 'uoiuido pejepisuoo jno U| (gt. • 1,002 -leaA siji ui aoB|d >ioo)3ji| siq tso| |ei aieAMS paseaoep uisjaqM iuepjooe eteunyo.iun sqi 'uoitednooo Aq jo|iei SEM 34''siuBLUiB|o sq} 0} 6uipj6oov 'iuepiooe 34} io a}ep ayi up sjesA fZ tnoqe psSe sew |e~| tueAqs pssBeoBa fel. •UO!lBJSp!SU039J ssjinbej pue spis jemoi 94} UQ leqMsaios si uunuuB jsd t -^Aa i? .. 'll?sa<y<f 'QiEsasy' . 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoia' any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to reeeive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interesf on the enhanced amount of compensation maybe quantified in this appeal Itself. 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the elaim 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 quantifythe amount of i.nterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.37,200/- at Rs.3,800/-. 19) For theforegoing reasons, the appealfiled bythe appellants/ claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation isallowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,800/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.37,200/-. - )) Respondent No.3- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is.grantedthreemonths'timefordepositing the total sum of Rs.41,000/- (Rs.37,20Q/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.3,800/-towards quantified amount of interest on theenhanced amount of compeRSation of fRs.37,200/-) before theconcerningClaimsTribunal. , 21) Tfl8entire.-amountof Rs.41,000/- to be now deposited by respondent No.3 the- Oriental Insurance Company 1-imited in '^ s^T*^' 1~^^?@!:'^-3^^'- :^.:1 Sssf";..^' *• k Ki' subbu comptiance of this order shall be payable to appeilant No.1 Smt. Anusuiya, widow of deceased Shyam Lal and respondents No. 4 Lekhram and No.5. Shakuntala shall not be entitied to get any share fromthisamount pfRs.41,000/-. ^ 22) No prder as to cqsts. Sd/- l < Chifif Justice^ /' Sd/- . :~fc Sunii Kumar Sinha Judse