HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 498 of 2008 Manoj Kumar Dadsena, aged about 11 years, s/o late Bhola Dadsena, r/o village Harratar, P.S. Saraipali, district Mahasamund C.G. at present Mahasamund C.G. Minor Manoj Kumar Dadsena through next friend Kirtan Dadsena, aged about 36 years, s/o Shri Fagulal Dadsena, R/o. Village Harratar, P.S. Saraipali, district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS 1 Rakesh Kumar Yadav, s/o Ramavtar Yadav, aged about 26 years, through Kuldeep Singh, s/o Parminder Singh, r/o Tatibandh, district Raipur C.G. 2 Kuldeep Singh, s/o Parminder Singh, aged about 35 years, r/o Tatibandh, district Raipur C.G. 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Madina Manzil, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur C.G. Lalita Bai, w/o Lamkasa, P.S. Mahasamund C.G. Ramakant, r/o Basna, district Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Present: Shri R. Pradhan, counsel on behalf of Ms. Shashi Baret, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for respondent No.4. .^;rt-^. N. A''"^^ ^>..,......,- %.„. <7 ORDER (01st July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ Claimant Manoj Kumar Dadsena, minor son of deceased Bholaram Dadsena is'seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.89/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,25,0007- claimed by appellant Manoj Kumar Dadsena and respondent No.4 Lalita Bai, unfortunate children of deceased Bholaram Dadsena, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, for his death in the motor accident on 03.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 Bholaram Dadsena died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.04.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04/J-2747; 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 ; '"'^^ 'fci^i SsSs^ 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 appeat 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.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 dependsncy of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.30,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their father Bholaram Dadsena in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,0007- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R. Pradhan and Ms Shashi Bareth, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- only. ^ '^: 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Lalita Bai, married daughter of deceased Bholaram Dadsena also contended that the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low. 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.1i60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthepresent case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that their father, deceased Bholaram Dadsena used to earn Rs.200/- per day as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.200/- per day. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 12) 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. 13) Considering that deceased Bholaram Dadsena was aged about 50 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 in the year 2006. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also, considering that deceased Bholaram Dadsena was in theage group of 46-50 years, cannot be found fault with 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 13 has been prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years. 16)- By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,08,000/-. 6 The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation for the death of their father Bholaram Dadsena in the motor accident. 17) 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 quantified in this appeal itself. 18) 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 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 of Rs.58,000/- at Rs.7,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,18,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-. ;J ibbu 20) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rs.58,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. ' 21) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge