>:...^;.3"?a>. S i^ffit'-'3! g 'gi^f (/^ -^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal No. 1225 ol2005 1. Smt. Shyambati, widow of late Punaram Dhivar, aged about 35 years, caste Dhimar. 2. Ku. Pushpa Dhivar, d/o late Punaram Dhivar, aged about 16 years, caste Dhimar. 3. Ku. Hemin Dhivar, d/o late pLunaram Dhivar, aged about 14 years, caste Dhimar Minor appellant No. 2 and 3 represented by their natural guardian & mother Smt. Shyambati. 4. Smt. Fekni Dhivar, wd/o late Bhagela Dhivar, aged about 60 years caste Dhimar (mother of deceased) All R/o village Kachna, Block Dharsiva, Tehsil and district Raipur C.G. Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS Kheluram Dhritlehre, s/o Tijauram Dhritlehre, aged about 32 years, r/o village Daundekala, P.S. Dharsiva, Tehsil and district Raipur C.G. (Driver of the Truck bearing regd. No. C.G.04-ZC8135) Rajkumar Nagdev, s/o Govindram Nagdev, aged about 39 years, r/o L-30, RajivNagar, Thana Mova (Pandri) tehsil and district Raipur C.G. (Owner of the Truck bearing regd. No. C.G.04-ZC^135) i»S/S& g •/^B^ '^.••^'..^ 'w^ - T:- ^•s3si!i-' 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, address Division Office, Kutchary Chowk, G.E. Road, above Central Bank, district RaipurC.G. (Insurer of the Truck bearing regd. No. C.G.04-ZC8135) Appeal U/S 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (06th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow, minor daughters and mother of deceased Punaram Dhivar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 14.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.72/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughters and mother of deceased Punaram Dhivar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total ^ sum of Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% -^- I 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 Punaram Dhivar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.05.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04ZC/8135; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the pplicy 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.1,800/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 15, the Compensation was worked out to Rs.1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,89,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Punaram Dhivar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,89,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, 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 assessing his income at Rs.1,500/- per month only; and awarding low compensation of Rs.1,89.500/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, 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.1,89,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) 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. !t should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,89,500/- 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 Punaram Dhivar used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month from fishing activities and further amount of Rs.50,000/- per annum from agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to .;:--;., 's;i i: i::' L^-. 1 1,1.\.;^y ^ establish the income of the deceased to the above extent. No documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased had any agricultural land at all. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- per month in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Punaram Dhivar was aged about 40 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 2004. 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. 13) 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. 14) Multiplier of 15 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, his widow, minor daughters and mother is appropriate. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for .fl^' •£1'-';11 S <? iiusiiigkjgsiii>- loss of consori:ium 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 Punaram Dhivar 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 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.65,500/- at Rs.6,500/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appegl filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,89,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.65,500/-. 19) ResponcTent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.65,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,500/- towards quantified amount of interest "/-, '\ / on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.65,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. _20) No order as to costs. ^—^ R.L. Jhanwar Judge au"ef Justia subbu