^ -^.S&L^'-.^"^ A \'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 241 of 2010. Appellant ^<1»iiw"m" Kumari Reeta Sutradhar, daughter of Late Sudhan Sutradhar, aged about 30 years, residence of Dharampura, Number-3 Police Station Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Respondents 1 Jaidev Singh Baghel, son of Late Jhirmit Singh Baghel, aged about 46 years, residence of Shahid Gundadhur Krishi Mahavidhyalaya Anusandhan Kendra, Kumharawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver and owner) 2 The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office in front of Anupama Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the appellant. Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER >th (13InSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ''- ^^ fl^^,^ 1 ^SiSta' I 1 . J.:/ \. ^:^y "%-^^ MAC.No. 241 of 2010 This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.42/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant, unfortunate unmarried major daughter of deceased Vimla Sutradhar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 24.12.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sumof Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, in the event of the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within two months of the passing of the award, 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 the claimant's mother Vimla Sutradhar died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 24.12.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending T.V.S. Suzuki Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-17/ZE-1533; as the above offending Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the United 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. ,.,,.-:^.^-^-:: MAC.No. 241 of 2010 ^ ^^^»W9t 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.100/- per day; Rs.3,000/- per month; and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her mother Vimla Sutradhar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- @ 6% per annum, in the event of the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within two months of the passing of the award, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum and the claimant's dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 5 and in awarding only Rs.2,000/- under other heads; and in awarding total compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- only. MAC.No. 241 of 2010 ^cv 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award contended that as deceased Vimla Sutradhar was not having any regular and definite income, the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Jaidev Singh Baghel, the driver-cum-owner of the offending Motorcycle, 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) As learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased and the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal, we have not examined that aspect of the matter. 12) The multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. -..^ MAC.No. 241 of 2010 C-f ^ 13) Though the deceased was shown to be 55 years of age in her postmortem report, the Tribunal considering that her eldest son was aged about 47 years when he appeared before the Tribunal as witness, determined the age of the deceased to be more than 60 years. In our opinion, multiplier of 7 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Snit) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, which prescribes the multiplier of 7 for the age group between 61-65 years. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, assessed by the Tribunal, with the multiplier of 7, the compensation works out to Rs.1,68,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation for the death of her mother Vimla Sutradhar in the motor accident. 15) 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. 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 ^ 6 MAC.No. 241 of 2010 ^ 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.56,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,22.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,78.000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-. 18) Respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.61,000/- (Rs.56,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu