HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & KON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Ciaimants ResDondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 651 of2006 1 Smt. Shailendri @ Shailendra, aged about 22 years, widow of late Shri Rikeshwar @ Rimesh; 2 Kailash Ram son of Shri Sukhram, aged about 42 years; 3 Phool .Kumari wife of Shri h&ilash Ram, agM^bout 38 years; 4 Romendra son of Shri Kailash Ram, aged about 12 years; minor through his natural guardian father Shri Kailash Ram. Ail residents of village Khamhariya, tahsil Nagri, district Dhamtari C.G. VERSUS 1 Dhiraj Kumar son of Shri Ram Soni, aged about 36 years, resident of Kondagaon, district Baster C.G. 2 B.L. Chandak son of Shri K.L. Chandak, residertt of- near Mott Pond, Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. 3 The New Jndia Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, district Durg C.G. Memo of apoeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. "'s^-^" ''^t ^ey' ;S»?inmia»ll- \, z^-' ORDER (15th 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 13.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.120/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, parents and younger brother of deceased Rimeshwar @ Rimesh, by flling a claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck bearing registration NO.C.G.17-H/4476 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income ^"?\ ^^) prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rimeshwar @ Rimesh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of eompensation of Rs;1,90,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award. 6) Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the ciaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,90,000/-only. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the NeW India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe 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 4 ^ . ^ ^i) 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.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Rimeshwar @ Rimesh used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as motor pump mechanic, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore; do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Rimeshwar @ Rimesh was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking theincome of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deeeased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. I— 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- wrth the multiplier of 1'^selected by the Tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.2,72,000/-. 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.2,87,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rimeshwar @ Rimesh in the motor accident. 15) 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 quantifled in this appeal itself. 16) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company atone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantity the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,0(X3/- at Rs.10,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants forenhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,87,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of eompensation of Rs.97,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,07,000/- (Rs.97,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.97,000/-) before the concernina Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu