•in^Bna ^.^.1\. l^ ^'d^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents Driver and Owner Misc. Appeal (C) No. 298 of 2011 1. Sudamaram aged about 50 years s/o Late Shrijand Das 2. Manoj Kumar aged about 23 years, s/o Sudamaram 3. Ku. Ambika aged about 20 years, d/o Sudamaram r/o village Pusavand, tahsil and distt. Kanker. VERSUS 1. Nasibchand Sharma, aged about 50 years, s/o Kundanlal Sharma r/o Phool chowk, Nayapara, Raipur (nearAgrawal PhatakShop), Raipur. '. National Insurance Company, Branch Office No,1, Navin Bazar, Phool Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur. Memo of appeal ynder Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Q. Aziz, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (13th December, 2011) 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, M.A.C.No. 298 of 2011 Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.06.2010, passed in Claim Case No.61/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and children of deceased Urmila Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 19.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Urmila Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 19.04.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZC/ 1529; as fhe above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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 impugned award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. By ^?^^ ^^-t~s 8 'SSSBSSSs ^^*. ^»SSEIa, wi '-L:3d£i&;;;^!9 S ,./-'"•'' ''"^RSSiSH3'''' I.A.C.No. 298 of 2011 ^ s / multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,00,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Urmila Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum and the claimants' dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annum, it haserred in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- only. 7) Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,20.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim casewhat is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 'i.^K^^^S^ i^^^gsa^B ^.^5'^^'^-.^^ ••^\ '-s —ss^ .^' M.A.C.No. 298 of 2011 2\ i-^ 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) As learned counsel for the appellants, have not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum; and the claimants' dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annum, we haye not examined that aspect of the matter. 11) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Urmila Bai was shown to be 50 years of age in her postmortem report is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. The dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 13, therefore, would be appropriate in the present case. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,60,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss ofestate; andlRs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the husband, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Urmila Bai in the motor accident. 13) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the ll"s;,..'t i'r'sy&£?"li s ""-'•^-'""•^•„:•'& ^ ^'. .. ^ ^" .A.C.No. 298 of 2011 a/^ *^.. Tribunal 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. 14) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition 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.55,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,75,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/-. 16) Respondent No.2 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) (Rs.55,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/-) toefore the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandiakar Judge padma