2. lstiyak Ahmed (owner Truck Dumper No. M.P. 26 D 4813), son of Shri Abdul Ahmd, resident of Bharatiya . Nagar, Bilaspur C.G. Branch Manager, the New India’ Insurance Co. Limited, Rajendra Nagar, Chowk, Bilaspur, Tah. and Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Misc. Apgeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. 'Present : Shri Sudhir Kashyap, counsel for the appellants. 1 None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. (7W ORDER d ‘ (315‘ March, 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 Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 21 .12.2004, passed in Claim case No.6/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,16,200/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents of deceased Sushil Kumar Suryawanshi; by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofdthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 01 08.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. i ~WWW ’ a a a?” ‘33 a + if. ~‘:§‘:;,. 3) he Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led T before it held that deceased Sushil Kumar Suryawanshi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.08.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.MP-26D/4813 (new No. C.G.-1OZB/2592); as the a above offending vehicle Dumper 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, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the 7 award; the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now s attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.18,000/— towards the personal expenses of the . deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at' Rs.12,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplierof ’16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,92,000/-. By awarding further amount under¢ other heads, the Tribunal’awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,500/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of ‘deceased Sushil Kumar Suryawanshi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,500/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) ' Shri Sudhir Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.1,500/— per month and Rs.18,000/- per ann‘um only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,64,500/— only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with»« Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New lndla Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported l a the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,64,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the ‘ facts and circumstances of the present case: 8) ln 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of ' Rs‘.2,64,500/- 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 Sushil Kumar Suryawanshi used to earn Rs.150/— per day as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was‘not of clinching nature. We, " i“ ?1w 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 per annum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Sushii Kumar Suryawanshi, on the date of the accident, was in the age group between 35 Tribunal at Rs 18 000/- -40 years we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs 70 75/- per day in the year 2003 even by working as an unskilled labour The Tribunal in our opinion therefore oughtto have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs 2 000/— per per annum and the compensation payable to.the claimants ought to have been assessed accordingly. 13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the number of claimants who are dependent on the income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of’ f compensation would make the compensation of Rs.2,64,500/— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) The _appeal ¢ month and Rs.24,000/— filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimants are awarded further sum of Rs.25,000/- inclusive ' if 7 'V s of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.2,64,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. , 15) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25‘000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha i Judge l. Sd/- l x 913ief Justice ‘