I ^"••—^ v-^^% %^JS ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants 1 ^ i\; Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (C} No. 1486 of 2009 1. Deva Beldar s/o Ganeshram Beldar, aged about 05 years, 2. Bhima Beldar, s/o Ganeshram Beldar, aged about 10 years, 3. Ganeshram Beldar, s/o Chatru Beldar, aged about 40 years. (Appellant No. 1 to 2 being minor on behalf of through their legal guardian father Ganeshram Beldar appellant No.3) All r/o Bemcha, tahsil & district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS •f Rajesh Kumar Sarang, s/o Sahebdas Sarang, aged about 33 years, r/o village Tanda, police station Dharsinwa, district Raipur C.G. Other address'- Shole Coal Depot, near the M.P.V.M. Kalibadi, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.I.T./8376) 2 Rajiv Mantri, s/o Dr. Ravi Mantri, aged about27 years, r/o Shole Coal Depot, Kalibadi, Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.I.T./8376) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.I.T./8376) 1 "^ 1 MAC.No. 1486 of 2009 vi^ 1, 4. Umar Faruk (Surya), s/o Abbubakar aged about 35 years, r/o near Water Tank, Nayapara, Mahasamund, district Mahasamund, C.G. (Driver of vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.23T/1422) 5. Umesh Kumar Navrange, s/o G.L. Navrange, r/o Imli Bhata, near Savita Devi School, Mahasamund district Mahasamund C.G. (Registered owner of vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 23T/1422) 6. The National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.23T/1422) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No.6. ORDER ird (03roAugust,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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.04.2002, passed in Claim Case No.10/2001. M.A.C.No.1486 of 2009 ^ ^. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Sushila Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 10.12.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a cldse scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Smt. Sushila Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 10.12.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.I.T.8376; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 considering the age and occupation of the deceased and all the claimants awarded lump-sum of Rs.75,000/- as cpmpensation for the death of deceased Smt. Sushila Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- ^sss^^'"' MAC.No. 1486 of 2009 u£? (<-.. @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the compensation in the prescribed manner of first assessing the income of the deceased; claimants' dependency; and then multiplying the dependency with the appropriate multiplier; and in awarding lump-sum of Rs.75,000/- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that as the claimants could notestablish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 8) Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, the driver and owner of the other vehicle Jeep in which deceased Smt. Sushila Bai was travelling and Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.6, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe said Jeep 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 of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. .p; ^f' t-7 F;- "l:i^, -..'l M.A.C.No.1486 of 2009 <Al 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensationof Rs.75,000/- 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. Sushila Bai used to earn Rs.75/- per day and Rs.2,400/- per month, the evidence before the Tribunal was to the effect that her income was Rs.80-100/- per day. In our considered opinion, the income of the deceased can be safely taken at Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. 12) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 13) Considering the age of the deceased, her husband, and their children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/-. 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 husband. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Sushila Bai in the motor accident. 15) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avpid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the 6 MAC.No. 1486 of 2009 v^ amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 16) 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.1,20,000/- at Rs. 12.000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,95,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.12,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.12,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. _^^— — — Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi