.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 134 of 2010 Appellant : Smt. Mangali Bai, w/o late Shri Mangiyaram, aged about 45 years, resident of village Parbheli, post Jadekurse, P.S. Durgukondal, district South Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Respondents Driver Shravan Kumar Netam, s/o Tulsiram Netam, aged about 40 years, resident of village and post Sambalpur, tahsil Bhanupratappur, district south Bastar Kanker C.G. Owner 2 Pawan Kumar S/o Shankarlal Rathi, resident of village and post Sambalpur, tahsil Bhanupratappur, district South Bastar C.G. Insurer 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Project, near auto mobile, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, district Durg C.G. Memo of appeal under Sectipn 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (30th September, 2011) "ti '^sy' M.A.C.No.134of2010 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate widow of deceased Mangiyaram is the sole appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2009, passed in Claim Case N6.46/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Mangiyaram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 10.03.2008 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,25,0007- 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 entire evidence led before it held that deceased Mangiyaram died on 10.03.2008 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent on 06.03.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-04-G/3386; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New 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 claimant. •A::s^ -:;'^ ^-i I.i^'gft S M.A.C.No.134of2010 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 the 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 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,10,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Mangiyaram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,25,0007- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15.000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,25,0007- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, on the other hand, M.A.C.No.134of2010 1, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- 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/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimant pleaded that deceased Mangiyaram used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as agricultural labour, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal indiscarding the claimant's evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 11) 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. 12) Considering that deceased Mangiyaram was aged about 55 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 labourin the year 2008. We, therefore, propose to M;A.C.No.134of2010 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 claimant's dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) As deceased Mangiyaram, on the date of the accident, was aged about 55 years, as shown in his postmortem report, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 11 would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 11 the compensation works out to Rs.1,76,000/-. The claimant is 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 claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- as compensation for the death of her husband Mangiyaram in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimant is 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 MAC.No. 134 of 2010 the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.66,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,25.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,91,0007- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.66,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.66,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.66,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 2Q) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu