;i- "¥' s tsssS^ .ff /S: •/ i /•S' slw'!wy ^ -/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 224 of 2003 iHia ApRellants Claimants JISI Respondents Non-applicants 1. Rangwati, aged about 25 years wd/o Mukundram 2. Minor Ruplal, aged about 5 years s/o Mukundram mother Rangwati 3. Minor Suklal, aged about 2 years s/o Mukundram, natural guardian & mother Rangwati 4. Smt. Maharo, aged about 43 years wd/o Thakurram, All R/o vill. Rodopali, P.S. Tmanar Tahsil Gharghoda, distt. Raigarh C.G. VERSUS 1. Dinesh Agrawal, s/o Ramchandra Agrawal occupation owner of Truck No.7576 R/o Station Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and district Raigarh C.G. 2. Dukhiya'Minj, aged about 34 years s/o Guju Minj, caste Uraon, occupation Truck Driver, R/o Chiraipani (Patrapali) Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company registered office Oriental House P.B. No. 7037925/27 Aasaf Ali Road, '--New Delhi, 115 0002 through Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh C.G. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (21st April, 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 Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.10.2002, passed in Claim Case No.02/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,70,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor sons and parents of deceased Mukundram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.10.1994, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 deceased Mukundram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.10.1994; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ofthe offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.M.P.L.- 7576; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured. with the Oriental 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 findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,200/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.800/- per month and Rs.9,600/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.9,600/- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mukundram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Vipin Punjabi, 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 ^iii'-S^ ^s^ -BiSSi' :isvr assessing his income at Rs.1,200/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of15; in awarding only Rs.2,000/- under other heads; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Dinesh Agrawal and No.2 Dukhiya Minj, the owner and driver ofthe offending vehicle Truck, also supported the award. 9) 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts arid circumstances of the present case. 11) Trug, the claimants pleaded that deceased Mukundram used to earn Rs.3,500/- per mpnth from agriculture and collecting Tendu leaves and Mahuwa, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3,500/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not i^TB: ^s Bi»"0 miSV find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 12) The Tribunal while discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13) We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking 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. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the person'al expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that deceased Mukundram, was aged about 30 years, on the date of the accident, in our opinion, multtplier of 17 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 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10.000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.1,70,000/-. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; loss of estate; and loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Mukundram in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.34,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is •enhanced to Rs.1,80,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.34,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.34,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.34,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu