-4-. ^. ^^^<9^1 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Appellants Claimants Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1027 of 2009 1 Rajneesh Jain, aged 33years, son of Vijay Kumar Jain 2 Ku Rashi Jain, aged 06 years 3 Ku Riya Jain, aged 06 months Appelants No.2 and 3 minor daughters through their natural guardian Amicus Curai, Rajneesh Jain, the appellant No.1 All resident of Priyadarshini Nagar, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur(CG) VERSUS 1 Omprakash Sahu, son of Dauram Sahu, resident of Village Joundhi, Police Station Nayapara, Rajim, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 2 Harimohan, Vishwas, son of late Gayabodh Vishwas, Police Station and Post Mana Camp, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 3 United India Insurance^'Co Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisiqnal Officer, Krishna Complex, Kachahri Chowk, Raipur (CG) ' Miscellaneoys Appeal under Section 173 of nflotorVehiclesAct Present : Ms IVIaya Verma, counsel for the appellants. .A.C.No. 1027 of 2009 Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for respondents No.1 and2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (17th October, 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 10 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.71/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate husband and minor daughters of deceased Smt Shalini Jain by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accident on 21.01.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12.000/- 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 entlre evidence led before it held that deceased Smt Shalini Jain died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 21.01.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.CG 04 ZQ 6232; as the above offending vehicle Tractor on the 3 .A.C.No. 1027 of 2009 a^ •r- date of the accident was insured with the United 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 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 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 dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.42,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Smt Shalini Jain in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 6) Ms Maya Verma, 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 I.A.C. No.1027 of 2009 assessing her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor on the other hand supported the award and confended that the compensation of Rs.2,12,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) Shri Sanjeev Banjare, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Omprakash Sahu and No.2 Harimohan, the driver and owner ofthe offending vehicle Tractor also supported the award. 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 ofthe 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.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Smt Shalini Jain used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month from tuitions, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and her income to the extent of Rs.12,000/- per month. 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 of the deceased. ^ M.A.C.No. 1027 of 2009 7 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2008 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Smt Shalini Jain was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that she could have easily earned Rs.2,000/- per month either from tuitions or by doing some other work. We therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) Considering that claimant No.1 Rajneesh Jain, husband of deceased Smt Shalini Jain was aged about 33 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that multipiier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case 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 SUpreme Court Cases 121, wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with. the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the husband; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become RB IAC.No. 1027 of 2009 entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Smt Shalini Jain in the motor accident. 17) The claimants are further awarded Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeat filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in pari:. The compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/- with further quantified amount ofinterest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty-five thousand only) (Rs.59,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. '20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice SdA Rangnath Chandrakar Judge -cadma_ 'x..