•'s"^ ^'' . i^. ^ ^.p f-7^} js^iw i^rfi^^i'iB ^a-iiavpr ,787 /^ t-^. t »VI/^»^^A. ^tCiiincij il® 1 Triveni Bai, aged about 30 years Wd/o ?«1inu @ Menu :t itlS»!1 2 Thssiva Bai. aaed about 60 vears Wdf'o Chsmru Yadav 3 Ku Kirti Yadav, aaed about 11 vears 4 Ku. Naikhva Yadav, aged about 4 years Both minor D/o Late Minu © Menu Yadav, Natura! Guardian Triveni BaiWd'o Minu @ Menu All R/o Gopibathpara, Pandaria Distt ka'/ardha (CG) U^)B 'a nr-K^iS?" L/s rv^?i l^ 1. Uneshwar, Aged 33 years S/o Keshram Chandrakar, R/o Viiiage $asti, Baiouda Bazar, fr^-r'i\ "3! Ovifner 2. Dur.ga Carrier Pv{ Ltd., Baiouda Baz.ar, Through Shish Bhushan Shukla, S,'o Chakrapani Shukia, Owner of vehicie bearing No.CG 04/2C 1020 Gandhi Chowk, Baioudabazar Raipur (CG) 3. The New Indla insurance Company Easpur ^lVSi UHiS, (CG) dabazar Al .J! Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the appeilants. ••/ None TOF respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No. -1-.-1 ^ ^' ••^y ^Wtf •;i!?^^^; f"5nii Cohnian/ •?nin'i '^^- i ^t-fi wi3i y, ^.\J i v/ The foilowina order of the Court was passed by This is ciaimants' appea! for enhancement of the compensation avvarded bv the Additiona! Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mungeti, Distt Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 27.02.2003 passed in Claim Case No.29/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,80,000/-, claimed by the appeilants / claimants, unfortunate widow, mother and minor Menu bv fllina a c.1aim petition r Vehicles Act for his under Section 166 of the motor accident on 20.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of ^.s.3,13,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from thfe dste of the filina of the claim petitlon, tilt the date of actuai. payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Minu @. Menu died on account of the injuries sustained bv him in the motor accident on 20.06.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and nealigent drivina of the driver of the offendina vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG 4 - ZC -1020; as the offendina vehicle truck on the ddte of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Coropanv Limited, the Insurance Compasy vvas Ijable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribuna! - assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/-~per annum. By deductina 1/3''" of Rs.27,000./- towarcfs. t'ne personal expsnses of !iJ^;! ^'3t^-''"" .4-^../ avw deceased, the clalmants' dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multipiying the annuat dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the muitiDiier of 17,' the compensaiion was worked out to Rs.3,06,000/-. By awa»Jing further sum of Rs.2,( funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,13,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of decyased Minu @ Menu in She motor accident. The Tr'.ounal turther directed payment of interest on the abo/e amount of compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- sfy 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petltion, tiil the dste of actual payment. 5) Shri Goutam Khetrapai and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsei for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not acceptina the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased; and in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.3,13,000/-only. 3) Shri Deepak Gupta, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of is.3,13,000/- awarded bv the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) As the respondents-have not .filed any appeal against the award, the above flndings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. That apart, these findings are not under challenge bsfore us in this appeai. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by th.e Tribunai. -- 1:! ! "I! '''ir'~':a——'-( fa$ iii!i:'tiasi^a 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 compensatlon in the t'acts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be.a meager amount of compensation, nor bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Mlnu @ Menu used to earn rupees 5-6 thousand per month as truck driver, in addition to sum of Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. tn this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the ctaimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunat at Rs.2,250/- psr month and Rs.27,000/- per annum Is certainly on ths lower side and requires re-consideration. In our considered opinion, the income of the deceased ouaht to have been assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. ,' 12) We, therefore, prop&se to re-cpmpute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. •iis;;.; w i,iti»ti!iia» 13) By deducting the usual '\13ra of Rs.30,000/- towards persona! expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. 14) The multiplier of 1 7 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Minu @ Menu was aged about 35 years and his widow Triveni Bai is shown to be 30 years of age in the claim petition, in our opinion, Is appropriate. 15) By muitiplvina the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the muttiplier of 17, the compensation works out to Rs.3,40,000/-. 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 loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a totai sum of Rs.3,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Minu @ Menu in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that wit'n 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 compensatlon may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17) Cdnsidering all the reievant factors inctuding the delay in disposal of the ciaim petifion 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 snhanced amount otcompensation of Rs.42,000/- at Rs.3,000/-. •;::*"s<3 "!r^<< i^y /^ alliBifi 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,55,000/-'with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,000./-. 19) Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for deposlting the total sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.42, towards enhanced , amount of compensation + Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.42,000/-) before the concernin.q Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhaiswar Judge DSCi^TtS