VS^TV- F^- r=\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR mVISIQN BENCH ^\ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.112 of 2009 7 "Y' Appellants Claimants 1. Smt. Bhojbati Sahu, aged about 27 years, wd/o late Bheeshanlal Sahu. 2. Rohan s/o late Bheeshanlal, aged about 4 years. 3. Priyanka d/o late Bheeshanlal, aged about 3 months. Appellant No. 2 & 3 are minors through their natural guardian mother Smt. Bhojbati Sahu, 4. Anakram Sahu, s/o Kawal Singh, aged about 55 years. 5. Dev Kunwar, w/o Anakram Sahu, aged about 50 years, All above r/o village Batora,post Bakma, police station Bagbahra, district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS Respondents Sampatti s/o Rama Dubukwad, aged about 40 years, r/o Mahamaya Chowk, Siddharth Nagar, Kandhar, police station Kandhar, district Nanded (Maharashtra) (Owner of offending vehicle bearing registration no. M.H. 26/L-2241 Car Indigo) Baburao Pandurang, s/o Kange, r/o A/P, Bhawani Nagar, Kandhar, Tahsil Kandhar, district Nanded (Maharashtra) (Driver of offending vehicle bearing registration no. M.H. 26/L-2241 Car Indigo) h. ^&^M^^m M 1 Y %^/ "^. w"' ^y :^:^,^^^ z rv 3 United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Second Manjil, Medewar Complex, New Sarafa Deglur, through Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur C.G. (Insurer of offending vehicle bearing registration no. M.H. 26/L-2241 Car Indigo) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 3 ORDER (06th July, 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 Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.10.2008, passed in Claim Case No.88/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.28,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Bheeshanlal Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/-as compensation along with interest @ 6% per 'z n-"";'" ^^^^s-.^-—-w B^ .;^%^ ^"^y%. /y'" ..'^^^ / f^ 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 Bheeshanlal Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Indigo Car bearing registration No.M.H.26/L-2241; as the above offending vehicle Indigo Car on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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 ^ppeal 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.100/- per day; and Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,88,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensation to the ^..^to" l^-l^, claimants for the death of deceased Bheeshanlal Sahu in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Manoj Paranjpe andShri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting thelower multiplier of 12; in not awarding any sum towards loss of estate and in awarding low sum of Rs.2,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium to the widow; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Indigo Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim 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.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^ .<'• 10) Though, learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal, we have examined the entire material available on record in regard to the income of the deceased. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. Similarly, the claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Deceased Bheeshanlal Sahu was shown to be 34 years of age in his postmortem report. His widow Smt. Bhojbati Sahu was aged about 27 years on the date of the accident. In our opinion, multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of 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 wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation T" II for the death of deceased Bheeshanlal Sahu in the motor accident. 14) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the 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. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal anu 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.1,07,000/- at Rs.13,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed inpart. The compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.13,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted threemonths' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.1,07,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.13,000/- towards quantified amount of \ RIN^ %-^&^'y^^^s^^a^^ 's:S-^:w^eSV^ interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. } „. ??/~ Chief Justice subbu l^ws^^1 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 3^. ..^; '.,.^ ^•SfS^^^^^