^^. y .-."••.-"^ /£^\ '.^^ 1/ ^ !•! V,1-'-^ ^- ^- ^ ^s-^^S^ % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J, & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Respondents |V[isc._ABBeaL(C) No. 34 of 2010 Satish Kumar Sinha, s/o Atal Sinha, aged about 21 years, r/o village Mangatha, tahsil &' district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS 1 Gurpal Singh @ Gurupal Singh, s/o Vichitra Singh @ Bachitar Singh- Sikkha Jat, aged about 31 years, occupation Driver & Trailer Swami, r/o village Kajanpur, post Kandila, district Gurudaspur (Punjab) 2 New India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Power House Bhilai, district Durg C.G. Memo^ofapBealJiQder Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (18th October, 2011) The following ord6r bf the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is daimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, k ?'a-^\ -'e.'-^ 61a ' >-y IAC.No 34 of 2010 Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 12/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,33,200/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate husband of deceased Smt. Ganga Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 02.07.2006, the Tribunal awgrded a total sum of Rs.1,21,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 the claimant's wife Smt. Ganga Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 02.07.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck-Trailor bearing registration No.P.B.-06/E/7158; as the above offending vehicle Truck-Trailor on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, ttie Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 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.50/- per day; Rs.1,100/- per month assuming that the deceased was getting work only fpr 22 days in a month and ^ Igg I.A.C.No34of2010 Rs.13,200/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rt of Rs.13,200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.8,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of -Rs.8,800/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,14,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded<.a total sum of Rs.1,21,400/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his wife Smt. Ganga Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,21,4007- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the incomeof the deceased at Rs.50/- per day only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; in awarding only Rs.7,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,21,400/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck-Trailor, on the other hand, supported the awar<j and contended that as the claimant could not establish any definite and' regular income of the deceased, the compensation of Rs.1,21,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^, .^ M.A.C.No34of2010 8) In a motor accident claimcase what 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 nora bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,21,400/- awarded by<.the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that his wife Smt. Ganga Bai used to earn Rs.70/- per day as Labour and the Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs.50/- per day; Rs. 1,1007- per month; and Rs.13,200/- per annum. 11) In our opinion, deceased Smt. Ganga Bai being aged about 20-21 years on the date of the accident could have easily earned Rs.65-70/- per day and as such the Tribunal ought to have assessed her income at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12) Considering that there were only two members in the family of tlre deceased i.e. the deceased herself and the sole claimant, her husbahdSatish Kumar Sinha and since the husband himself was also earning as labour we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per -,^-^ .y' r l!> MAC.No 34 of 2010 ^ annum by deducting 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased. 13) Considering that deceased Smt. Ganga Bai was aged about 20-21 years and her husband claimant'Satish Kumar Sinha was also aged about 22 years, on the date of the accident, we are ofthe opinion that multiplier of 18 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 18 has been prescribed for the age group between 21-25 years. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 18 the compensation works out to Rs.2,16,000/-. The claimant is 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 husband. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,31,000/- as compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Ganga Bai in the motor accident. 15)'- Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view tb-avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the enhan'ced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the. claim petition, and the IAC.No 34 of 2010 subbu presertt appeal 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 ofRs.1,09.600/-at Rs.10,400/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compwsation of Rs.1,21,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,31,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,400/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.1,09,600/-. 18) Respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand only) (Rs.1,09,600/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,400/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,09,600/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. ___ Sd/- Chief Justice Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar Judge .^ •';i'aESS^EE3E?^5^' ^SS!3! SS:"!?''E i- '---'°m