COURT OF AT GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE Ap^etjants Ciaimants -.>'• -^ No.1031 of 2004 1 Smt Ratlyavan Bai, W/o Shri Late Vishambhar Yadav, 50 years 2 Shiv Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Shri Vishambhar Yadav, aged 25 year 3 Smt Rukhmani Yadav, W/o Shiv Kumar Yadav, aged 23 years All the R/o Viiiage Umariya, PS Pathariya, District Bifaspur (CG) Respondents Driver Owner insursr -.3. Baiwant Rai, S/o Tar Sen Rai, Aged about 36 years, R/o 256-Colony Dailirajhara, PS Daiiirajhara, District Durg (CG) Gurcnit Singh Punjabi, S/b Jaswant Slngh, R//o Ganjpara, Durg Dlstrict Durg (CG) Proprietor Raipur - Bus - Service Owner Bus No.CG 07ZA - 0334 The Oriental insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, in front of High Court Biiaspur (CG) iVlisceilaneousADOtaLunder Section 173_of Present : Shri Gautam Kshetrapai, counsel for the appeliants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Prashant Jayaswai, Senior Advocate vvith Shri Neera] Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.3. (1st 2010 10) b-f ••k The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta.C.J. This is daimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon av^arded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 26.07.2004, passed in Ciaim Case No.27/2003. 2) As agalnst the compensatlon of Rs.18,60,000/- daimed by the appeilants/ciaimants, unfortunate widow, son and daughter-in- iaw of deceased Vishambhar Yadav by filing a clalm petition under Sectson 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.01.2003, the TribunaS awarded a totai sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation to the claimants aiong with interest 6% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Vishambhar Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him In the motor accident on 24.01.2003; the accident occarred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the driver of the offendlng vehic!e Bus bearing registration No.CG-07- ZA/0334; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was Insured with the Oriental Ensurance Company Limited; and the insurance Company couid not establish any breach of the policy conditions; the insurance Company was iiable to pay oompensation to the daimants. ^ ..-.J 4) As the respondents have not fited any appeai against the award; the above findlngs recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finailty. 5) The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notionai income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the IViotor Vehicles Act; by deductjng 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the daimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitipiying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000 /-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribuna! awarded a totai sum of Rs.87,000/'- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Vishambhar Yadav in the motor accident. The TribunaE further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.87,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the clalm petition tili the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Gaytam Kshetrapai, iearned counsel for the appeHants submltted that the Tribuna! has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum oniy; in seiecting the iower muitiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.87,000/- onfy, 7) Shri Prashant JayaswaS, learned Ssnior counsei and Shri Neeraj Pradhan, iearned counse! for respondent No.3 the Orienta! insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the ^' award snd contended that, as deceased Vlshambhar Yadav vvas shown to be an oid and infirm person aged about 60 yesrs in his postmortem report, the compensation of Rs.87,000/-, avrfarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) in a motor accident ciaim case what is important Is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. !t shouid nsith'er be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shali examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Vishambhar Yadav used to earn Rs.100/- per day by seiiing miik and another Rs.100/- per day as Csrpenter, the evidence !ed in that behalf was not of cl'nching nature.in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the appro^ch of the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants' evldence about the income ofthe deceased. .11) Nevertheiess, the Income of the deceased assessed by the Tribursa! at Rs.15,000/- per annum is certainiy on the iower side and requires reconsideration. 12) The notionai income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act in the year 1994. If the increase in the prices of essentiai commodities and the cost of living during the period between 1994 '..^—%' "SSjl. § --^ J ..^. •^ ^ .1-^ and 2003 are taken into consideration, the notionai income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the Second ScheduEe in the year 1994 v^ouid certainly come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2003. We, therefore; propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that claimant No.2 Shiv Kumar Yadav was major son of deceased Vishambhar Yadav, aged about 25 years on the date ofthe accident and claimant No.3 Smt Rukhmani Yadav is his wife, it is oniy ciaimant No.1 Smt Ratiyavan Bai, Vtfidovv of deceased Vishambhar Yadav, who was v^hoily dependent on the income of the deceased. We, therefore, deem it proper to deduct 50% of the Income of the deceased towards his personai expenses. The ciaimants' dspendency; therefore, is assessed at Rs.15;000/-; per annum. 14) Deceased Vishambhar Yadav has been shown to be 60 years of age in his postmortem report and his widow claimant No.1 Smt Ratiyav'an Bai was shown to be 50 years of age in the ciaim petition. in our opinion, multiplier of 9 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier of 9, the compensation works out to Rs.1,35,000/-. The ciaimants are further entitied to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate. The ciaimants, thus, becomeentitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Vishambhar Yadav in the motor accjdent. ^•' Lt^:j •^•""•"^ ;. .^la | ":^ ?" ''%^y ..^' ^ \r .--\ 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that vvith a vlew to avoid any posslble dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified In thls appeal itseif. 17) Considering aii the relevant sspects of the matter inctuding the deiay in disposa! of the daim petition and the present appeai, and the fact that the insurance Company aione is not to be biamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the am6unt of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeai filed by the cjaimants for enhancement of the compensation is aiiowed in part. The compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/" on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-. 19) Respondent^Np.3 the Orientai insurance Company Llmited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.63,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/-) before the concerning CIaims Tribunai. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice sd/- r ;R.N.Chandrakar ? Judge } ^^' -cf^