y Claimants /-; ? Rameshwari aged about 2{ 1 Rambharose Sahu Sahu, v/fo • late 2. Monika Sahu, aged about 9 years, D/o Late Rambharose Sahu 3. Yogesh @ Babloo, aged about 7 years, S/o Rambharose Sahu' 4. Hemant Kumar @ Chhotu, aged about 5 years, S/o Late Rambharose Sahu 5. Rama Bai, W/'o Late Bhagirathi Sahu, aged about 60 years No.2 to 4 are minors through their natural guardian mother ' Rameshwari Raameshwari Sahu, W/o Late Rambharose Sahu All are r/o viliage Khaira (Jairam Nagar), PS & Tahsil - Masturi, Distt Bilaspur '.-'' • ^ 2. Shiv. Shankar Yadav, S./o Shantiia! Yadav, aged about 35 years, Driver by occupation, R/o Brahman Mohalla, Baloda, PS Akaltara, Distt Janjgir Champa(CG) Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, S/Q Janaki Prasad Agrawal, r/o Aka'tara Road, infron.t of Hanuman Tempie - Baloda, PS Akaltara, Distt Janjgir (Owner) - Champa (CG) ffl i.t / r"s' ui'r 3. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, In front of High Court, Bilaspyr, Tahsil & Distt Bilaspur (CG) ^. l Present : Shri Manoj Mishra, counsel for the appeitants. Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel forrespondent No.3. w,^' a• a ra N » The following order of th4 JCourt was passed by This is ciaimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by. the Aa'ditional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, Biiaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.11.2005, passed in Claim Case No.62/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.45,90,000/-,claime(j by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Ramhharose Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the mQtor accident on 12.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of < •• • '• • .. •' • • . • • • '• ': •' ' • ' • . . • Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation to theclajmants aiong with interest > • '."•••.'•.' ' ' • ''.''' 6% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal oh a close scrutiny of the entire ev'idence led before it heid that deceased Rambharose Sahu died on aceoynt of the injuriessustainedby him in the motoraccfclenton12.02|2005; fe' -^ .\.\\ the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.C.G.11- A/4195; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accidentwas insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the thsurance Compsnycould not establish any breach ofthe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have'not fited any appeal against the award, theabove findings recorded by the, Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed fhe income.of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3l'd o.f Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1Q,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a totaisum of Rs.1,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rambharose Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribynal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing oftheclaim petltiontiilthe dateofactual payment. 6) Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted thaf the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence abbut the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in awarding .-Jf' ^-.'' -.^: f ^ only Rs.5,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.1,65,OOQ/- only. 7) Shri H.P. Agrawa!, learned counse! for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador.on the other hand supported the award and contended that as theclaimants could not estabiish the income:of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances pf the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is'important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts /'Tribunals 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.1,65,000/- 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 Rambharose Sahu used to earn Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from, agricuiture and buying anrf selling cattle, no cogent and re!iable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income tothe extent of.Rs.1,5Q,000/- per annum. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in theapproachof the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the incQme ofthedeceased. ii|pss!°N| | .// ^•'"'^' '•wfay /' 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Rambharose Sahu was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident, we are of the oplnion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2005 even by working as an unskiiled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute ihe compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3I'd of Rfe.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age ofthe deceased, his widow and other claimants, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/'- with the multipiier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of-consortium to the widow. The claimants.thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rambharose Sahu in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoidany possible dispute betw,'een the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of cortipensation, the amount of 6 y interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the deiay 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 detay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/- at Rs.10,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fiied by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of^the compensatlon is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced.to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/'- on tiie enhanced amount of compensationof Rs.90,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is gianted three. months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.90,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.90,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- RanenathC&andrakar Judge nimmi