A- PZ ^- dp HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLESHRrRAJEEVQUPTA,CJ.& HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANTS CLA1^4ANTS M.A.N0.020F2002 1 Smt. Budhani, wi/o Khatkudi, aged 26 yeare 2 Smt. Budhai, wd/o Sonu, agedSO years 3 Ghenv i,s/oKhatkudi,aged10 yeara. Appellant No.3 through mother natural guardian Appellant No.1 Smt. Budhani Wd/o late Khatkudi All residents of village Bagbahar, P.S. Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Pareshwar Baghel, S/o Pandu Ram, r/o Tokapal, Dlsh'tet Bastar 2. B. Satish Kumar Rao, s/o B. Bhanuji Rao, do M/s Bhagya Laxml Traders Jain Mandlr Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar(C.G.) 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Jagdatpur, District Bastar (C.G.) MISCELLENEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT.1988 RESPONDENTS NON APPUCANTS Present: Shri Prafull Bharat, leamedcounsel for the appeflants. None for resfwndents No. 1 and2. Shri H.B-Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shrt Pankaj Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (13tnFebruary,20®9) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: - This is cteimants' appeat for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated20.09.2001, passed in Claim Ca^ No.226/99. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and mother of deceased Khatkudiclaimed compensatton pf Rs.8,®3,000/-by flling a clalm petltion under Section 166 ofthe Motor VehtetesAct for his death in the motoraccidenton 13.11.1999, when the Mini Bus bearing registration No.MP24C-0653dash®ihim, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. The clahnants further pleaded that deceased Khatkudl was aged about ^) y^re and used to eam Rs.1 OO/- per day as Mason. 3. The driver of the offendlng vehicte Mini Bus did not contest the claim and was proceeded ex parie tefore the Tribunal. The ownerand Insurer ofthe offending vehicle h41ni Buscontested the claim and denied thelr liabillty to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurer took the furtherplea that the driver of the offending vehtele Mini Bus was not hotding a valid driving licwice and the Mini Bus was being plied in breadi of the prticy conditions. 4. The claimantsexamined AW-1 Budni Bai and AW-2 Bhaktu in support of their ctaim, whereas the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Mini Bus did not examine any wihiess 1n rebuttal. 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evUence led before it held that deceased Khatkudl died on account of the injtiries 3i(} uj ujiy Aq peuiBtsns saunfu! 8M} p lunoooe uo peip ipniiiei^ paseaoap ieqi (eunquj. sqi Aq papjooaj sBuipuy eqi -9 •A|uo-/ooo'frZ'l.'sa ^O UOItBSUadtUOO M0| BuiptlGMB Ul pUB :£(, 10 J9!|d.lt|nUU J8MO| 6u!|oa|8S ui :A|UO uinuue jed -/OQS'Et "sy IB siuooui 314 Buissssse ui pue pasesoap aiji p auuoouj ayi inoqe souspiAe ,SIUBLU!B|O st|} Buitdaaoe iou ui pajja seq leunqyi 94} tBqi psyiujqns s}UB||addB 94) JQ^ fasunoo paujesi 'i&jeqg iinj&id UMS 'L •tUsujABd lenpe jostep au^ ||!i 'uoRitad LUIBIO aqi p Bujiy joatep gifl tuoj^ lunuue jsd %g @ -/OOO'frZ' l"sy P uouBsusduioo p lunouie sAoqe eq} uo }S3J8}U! 10 )uaiuAed pstoajip jayyry IBunqui eyi 'iuepiooBjoiouj 341 ui !pn)|ieioi pssesoep JO IRB8P aift JOJ StUBlUIBIO ayi 0} uoitBSuadiuoo se -/ooO't'S^'sy jo uins |B)OI B papjBMB (Bunquj. aqi 'speay jsyio jspun -/000'Z'sy lo uins Jawn^ DuipjBMe Ag "-/OOO'ZI-'t'sy 0} }no pe)|joM SBM UOI^BSUSdUIOO 9MI '£t10 J81|djl|niU 8i(} quM -/0)0'6'sy Jo Aouspusdap |enuue ai<} BuiAidjiinuj Ag 'iunuue jsd -/QOO'S 'sy ye passasse SBM Aouspuadap ,stUBiU!B|o s^i'sasuadxs leuo&iad siii spje/vot -/oos'ei.'sy 10 pjE/t Guiionpap Ag •uinuue jsd -/oOS'ei'sy }B psseaosp aij} p sujoouj ay» passssse |eunqui 341 •g •s)ueiuiB|o 94) 0} uoBESUsdLuoo Aed o) aiqeii SEM Auediuoo sou&insui 9i(i 'pstiuin AuedLuoo eouejnsui Bipu) pa}iun SM^ 4}iM pajnsui SBM luepiooe 34} ^o siep 34} uo sng IUJM ap!48A Buipueyo 94} se 'sng IUIM sioiysA Sujpua^o syi JO J8AUP aifl JO BUJAUP }ua6!|Bau pue ysej 0} anp psxinooo tuapiooe 8W !6661."tt'£t uo tuapiooe j0}0tu 8i|| ui uiiy Aq pauieisns %..„ ^ VW Sfh -sS.iS motor accldent; the accldent c»curreddue to rash and negltgent driving of the driver of the Mini Bus; and the insurer of the Mini Bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. The compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals in a motor claim case should be just and proper compensation. It should neither be a meageramount nor a bonanza 10. Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensationof Rs.1,24,WO/- awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper compensation in the factsand circumstancesofthe presentcase. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Khatkudi used to earn Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month as Mason, but the evidence led by the claimants in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the appreach of the Tribunal in dlaardlng the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased; 12. Nevertheless, the Tribunal whHe disearding the clalmants' evldence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the tesis o! notional incomeprescribed in the Second Schedule under Swtion 163-A oftheMotorVehiclesAct, 1988. 13. The notional income of RSi15,000/- was prescribed in the Sasond Schedufe in the year 1994. Ifthemcreawinthe prices of the essentiat commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 1999 (the yearof accident in the present case wherein deceased Khatkudi lost his life) is taken into consideration, the notional Income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs.16,000/- in the year 1999. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/~ per annum. 14. By deducting 1/3r<l of Rs. 18.000/- towards the personal expenses of the decea^, the claimants' dependCTcy is assessed at Rs.12,0(X)/- per annum. 15. Considering that dece^ed Khatkudi was SO years of age on thedate ofthe accident; hissmdow Smt Budhani ws®%yeare of age and hls mother ^vas aged about 50 years at the time of filing of the clalm petition, we are of the opinion Vhat multipUer of 'tSwould be appropriate inthe present case. 16. By multlpiytng the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplierof 15, the compensation worksout to Rs.1,80,000/-. TTie claimants are further entitled to rKseive Rs.5,(XX)/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The ctaimants, thus, become entttled to receive a total sumof Rs.1,95,000/- £B compensation for the death of deceased Wiatkudi in the motor accident. XiS"a9°:5E%. ,^<-'''r; '^i. fli-T- jplF subbu 17. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the pafties aboutthe period for which the claimants are entitted to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest may be quantifled in this appeal itself. 18. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the clalm petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.71,0)0/- at Rs.14,000/-. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the clalmants for enhancement of the compensationis allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- awarded by the Trtbunal is enhanced to Rs.1,^,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.14,000/- on the enhanced amount ofcompensation ofRs.71,000/-. 20. Respondent No.S/United India Insurance Company Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositlng the total sum of Rs.^,000/- (Rs.71,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.14,000/- towards the quantited amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21. No orderas to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge