(/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (0 No.139 of 2010 Appellants Respondents Driver Owner Insurer 1 Smt Fagni Bai, W/o Late Bisruram, aged about 45 years 2 Ratanlal, s/o Late Bisruram, aged about 28 years 3 Rattiram, s/o Late Bisruram, aged about 26 years 4 Dinesh, s/o Late Bisruram, aged about 24 years AII appellants are residents of village Sipat, PS Durgukondal, District South Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1 Shravan Kumar Netam, s/o Tulsiram Netam, aged about 40 years, resident of village and post - Sambalpur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, District - South Bastar, Kanker (CG) 2 Pawan Kumar, s/o Shankarlal Rathi, resident of village and post - Sambalpur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, District - South Bastar, Kanker (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Project, near Auto Mobile, GE Road, Power House, Bhilai, District - Durg (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. -;^ •^g^ 1 MACNo.139of 2010 ORDER >th (13ln0ctober,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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2009, passed in Claim Case No.47/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and major sons of deceased Bisruram Gond by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 06.03.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/- 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 entire evidence led before it held that deceased Bisruram Gond died on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident 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 claimants. MACNo.139of 2010 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned 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 ofthe 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. 15,0007- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,25,0007- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Bisruram Gond in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Akhilesh Mishra, 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 assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- 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 MACNo.139of 2010 r ^.-t 'L 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 case. 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 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 ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Bisruram Gond used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as labour and the Tribunal has assessed his income 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. As the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not of clinching nature, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 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.Bisruram Gond 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 ,^ MACNo.139of 2010 unskilled labour in the year 2008. We therefore, propose to 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 claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) The multiplier of 1 1 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Bisruram Gond was shown to be 55 years of age in his postmortem report, in our opinion, is appropriate in the present case in view of 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 11 has been prescribed for the age group between 51-55years. 15) By multiplying the annualdependency of Rs. 1 6,000/- with the multiplier of 11, selected by the Tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.1,76,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Bisruram Gond in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with 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 compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. MACNo.139of 2010 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 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 appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,91,000/- with further quantified amount of interest 6f 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/- (Rupees seventy two thousand only) (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. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma