A-J^- R. -(&' s • ^f\^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^ CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. ARpeal (Cl No. 1239 of 2010 Appellants 'i- Respondents 1) Ramdayal Jaiswal s/o. Late Shri Soukhi Lal, aged about 60 years. 2) Smt. Jaimati Jaiswal w/o. Shri Ram Dayal Jaiswal, aged about 55 years. 3) Jitendra Jaiswal s/o. Ramdayal Jaiswal, aged about 17 years. 4) Sikendra Jaiswal, s/o. Shri Ramdayal Jaiswal, aged about 15 years. 5) Virendra Jaiswal s/o. Shri Ramdayal Jaiswal, aged about 13 years. 6) Rani Jaiswal d/o. Shri Ramdayal Jaiswal, aged about 9 years. Appellants No. 3 to 6 are minor through then legal representative Ramdayal Jaiswal all are residents in front of house of Banwari Lal Agrawal, Durpa Road, Korba, District Korba (CG). VERSUS 1 Santosh Das s/o. Shri Fekudar Manikpuri, aged about 29 years, r/o. Dhodhipara, Korba, CSEB Chowki, Korna, Tahsil & District Korba (CG) (Driver of alleged vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 12ZC/8785). 2 Visheshwar Sharma, s/o. late Ramprasad Sharma, r/o. near B. Type Colony, Dhodhipara, Korba, CSEB, Chowki Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). ESLr ^ /,^.S%i. ''^. •i¥ii t .A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 (Owner of alleged vehicle bearing registration No. CG.12 ZC/878I5). 3 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Sitamani Korba , Tahsil and District Korba (CG): (Insurer of alleged vehicle bearing registration No. CG.12 ZC/8785). Memo of appeal under Section t73^ofMotoryehicle Act > Present: Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ^ ORDER •th (16InAugust,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 Second Addltional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.11.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 10/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.25,50,000/-' claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, brothers and sister of deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 05.02.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. +- r M.A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 ^, <.... .> 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.02.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.CG-12ZC/8785; as the above offending vehicle Tractor 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 appeal against the award, the above findihgs 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 the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.2,0.00/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual -dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.35,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- @ 6% \//^ \ "•s' ^SSSStS^' M.A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- 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 Tractor, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- 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.1,55,000/- 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 Anil Kumar Jaiswal used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month as Autorickshaw driver, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the ,»»aa^,, ^ "SSi&S't r Jr .S M.A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,500/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. 11) Deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident. He was unmarried. The claimants are his father, mother, brothers and sister. The Apex Court while considering the element of dependency of father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased who was Bachelor in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 observed in para 31: "31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to , evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a •dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father." Thus, in view of the above quoted observations of the Apex Court, in the presentcase also only claimant No.2 Smt.Jaimati ~"'?OT?T'*'^-"!;:s::'^-.:!:^ ^aieiBi^as^i^^^' M.A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 Jaiswal, who is mother of deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal alone would be treated as dependant on the income of the deceased and the compensation would be assessed accordingly. 12) As among the six claimants in the claim petition, only claimant No.2 Smt.Jaimati Jaiswal has been held dependant on the income of the deceased and that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 13) As claimant No.2 Smt. Jaimati Jaiswal, mother of the deceased alone has been held dependant on the income of the deceased, her age alone would be relevant for selecting the appropriate multiplier in the case. As she was shown to be 55 years ofage in the claim petition, the appropriate multiplier, in our opinion, would be 10. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency oftRs.18,000/- with 'the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs-1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the d6ath of deceased Anil Kumar Jaiswal in the motor accident. t-i M.A.(C)No. 1239 of 2010 15) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to. Rs.1,90,000/- with furi:her quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.35,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. — -__ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge