HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1393 of 2007 1) Smt. Ritu @ Himeshwari Bandekar widow of late Chandra Kumar Bandekar, aged about 30 years. 2) Ku. Karishma Bandekar, D/o. Late Chandra Kumar Bandekar, aged about 7 years. 3) Ku. Sajna, D/o. Late Chandra Kumar Bandekar, aged about 1 years. 4) Smt. Ghasnin Bai, widow of late Bhagelaram Bandekar, aged about 60 years. Appeltants No, 2 and 3 are minors, through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Ritu @ Himeshwari Bandekar widow of late Chandra Kumar Bandekar and all resident of vitlage Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud,District Dhamtari (CG). Versus 1) Shri Raghvendra Singh, son of Ramakant Chatariya, resident of Mandi Road, Charama, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (CG). 2) Santosh Kumar son of late Aditya Prasad, aged about 30 years, resident 6f Jawaharnagar, Police Station Moudahapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through the Branch Manager, Branch Office near Adarsha Bal Mandir, Behind of Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG). (Appealunder Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar) Present: Respondents Mr. P.P. Sahu,counsel forthe appellants. Mr. D.N. Prajapati and Md. Tariq Haider, counsel for resp.ondent No.1. Mr. SudhirAgrawal/'cpunset for respondent No.3. & ORAL ORDER (Passedon 13-12-2010) 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short, "the Tribunal"), Dhamtari vide award dated 11-9-2007 passed in claim caseNo. 148 of 2007. 2. The appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, daughter and mother of deceased Chandra Kumar Bandekar claimed compensation of Rs.12,60,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for his death in the motor accident, which took place on 29-9-2006. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased-Chandra; Kumar Bandekar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29-9-2006. The accident occurred due to rash.and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle IndicaCar bearing registration No. CG 07/7413, as the offending vehicle on the date of the gccident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The Tribunal assessed theincome of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs. 15000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1Q,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual :^:..S:SS£S^£SSS'S& ^'^" t -?ltt^, ^A ^ dependency of Rs. 10,0007- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.27000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants for the death of deceased Chandra Kumar Bandekar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- @ 6% per annum fromthe date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5. Shri P.P. Sahu learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal haserred in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- was prescribed in Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act in the year 1994. Therefore, looking to the rise of prices of essential commodities and cost of living from 1994 to 2006, the Tribunal ought to have assessed some higher amount as annual income of the deceased. He prayed for suitable enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., supporting the impugned award submitted that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation-of Rs. 1,87,0007- awarded by the Tribunal is just and -^ ^ 1! '';w^,y Y;fe^' proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7. Shri D.N. Prajapati and Shri Md. Tariq Haider, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has also supported the impugned award. 8. Ihave heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. 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. 10. Now, l shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is justand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Chandra Kumar Bandekar used to earn Rs.4000/- per month by working in electronic shop of Kaushal Kumar. The evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Kaushal Kumar(AW/4) in hiscross examination has deposed that he has not maintained any register about the payments of the employees and has also not maintained accounts book. He has further deposed that he has not taken any licence about his electronic shop. He has stated that he was earning Rs.8000/- - Rs.10,000/- from his shop and he was.,paying Rs.4000/- per rhorith as salary to the deceased Chandra Kumar Bandekar. In thisstate of highly discrepant evidence, 1 do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Except the oral evidence of these witnesses, no other evidence was led to prove such income of the deceased and even there was no documentary evidence to prove that in-fact deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month.. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15000/- on the basis ofthe notional income. 12. Be that as it may, admittedly, the deceased was doing work in private concern and was aged about 38 years at the time of incident.. Thus, deceased was skilled labour. The incident took place in the year 2006. Thus, in any circumstance, it can be safely taken that a male skilled labour' would have easily earned Rs.2000/- per month in the year 2006. Looking to the age of widow, minor chitdren and mother of the deceased- and considering the rise of prices of the essential commodities and cost of living in between 1994 and 2004, certainly the above notional income of Rs.15,000/- can be taken on some higher side in the subsequent years. Therefore, 1 deem it appropriate to re-compute the compensation by holding the income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. . ^w 13. By deducting 1/3 towards thepersonal expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs.16,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 38 years. By applying multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency of Rs.16000/- the compensationworks out to Rs. 2,56,000/-. Thus, the .appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,56,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Chandra KumarBandekar in the motor accident on 29-9-2006. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,87,000/- to the appellants/claimants. By deducting Rs. 1,87,00007- from Rs.2,56,000/-, the difference comes to Rs.69,000/- which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as amount of enhanced compensation for the death of deceased Chandra Kumar Bandekar in the motor accident. 14: To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the claim petition as also the claimants' appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannOt be blamed for such delay, 1 deem it appropriate to quantify the interest, which 1 quantify as Rs.6,000/- in this matter. • 15. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.69,000/- as the enhanced amountof compensation and Rs. 6,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which they shall receive from respondent No.3/ Oriental Insurance CompanyLtd. Raju 16. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No.3 is granted three months time to deposit this amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. —___ Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge