@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D!\.’!SION BENCH CORAM: HGN‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J MA. N0. 95 of 2002 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Subhash Yadav. counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. < ORDER (19m Aprii, 2919) 1. Durajo w/o Sitaram, aged 3O years. 2. Agram S/o Sonadhar, aged 60 years. 3. Lakhiram S/o Sitaram, aged 16 years. 4. Mina D/o Sitaram, aged 13 years. 5. Patiram S/o Sitaram, aged years. Appeliant No.3 to 6 are minor through their legal guardian mother Durajo W/o Sitaram appellant No.1 All resident of village — Turenar PS. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Lalji Gupta S/o Shitaia Prasad Gupta, resident of village — Tongpal, Disti. Dantewada (C.G.) Shitala Prasad Gupta Slo Shambho Nath Gupta resident village Tongpal, Distt. Dantewada. 3 The Oriental Assurance Company through Branch Manager, Branch Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is ciaimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur at Bastar, (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 20.1 ’l .2001, passed in Claim Case No.35/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,32,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, children and father of deceased Seetaram Kashyap, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.11.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/— 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 Seetaram Kashyap died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.1 1 .2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. MP. 64D/0048; as the offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the » accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4). As therespondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finalitv. // \r‘ \ \ \ 5)‘ The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/— per day; Rs.1 ,SOOI- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.18,000/- towards the persona! expenses of ' the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annual dependency oi Rs.1 2,000/— with the muitipiier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,04,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/— towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,11,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Seetaram Kashyap in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,1 1 ,OOOI— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel 'for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.50l- per day; Rs.1 ,5OOI- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,1 1 ,000/- only. 7) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.2,11,00D/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (/a/ ’/ \/ /'\ / \ 8) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,11,DOO/- 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 Seetaram Kashyap used to earn Rs.100-15D!— per day as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. ln this state of evidence, we 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 Tribunai at Rs.50/- per day; Rs.1,500l- per month and Rs.18,000/— per annum is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Deceased Seetaram Kashyap was aged about 38 years on the date of the accident. The unfortunate accident in the present case wherein deceased Seetaram Kashyap lost his life took place in the year 2000. Deceased Seetaram Kashyap being able-bodied man could have easily earned Rs.70—75I- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at RS.2,000/- pet/lll/OQth4 and RS.24.,000/- pel’ annum. \ e “K \ \ a“ 13) By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.1 6,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Seetaram Kashyap was aged about 38 years on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 15 was prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,0001. with the multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000I-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,GOO/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000i— for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Seetaram Kashyap in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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. 17) Considering all the relevant factors 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 /‘ a / \ \ 6 delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of ihterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.44,000/- at Rs.4,0001-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,11,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.44,000/—. 19) Respondent No.3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.44,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.44,000I-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. i - #4,,a....s-’#’*#1 i I. V sky- l V N Sunil Kumar Sinha Sdl— \\ fr'fiJer . Judge ,V x chiefJustice l‘ ‘ , 7.;v‘ subbu l