HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1397 of2009 Appellants Claimants ^•y 1. Smt. Anna Mistri w/o late Sukhdev Mistri, aged about 27 years, 2. Minor Sudipta Mistri d/o late Sukhdev Mistri, aged about 07 years, 3. Minor Neha Mistri d/o late Sukhdev Mistri, aged about 05 years, 4. Minor Khushi Mistri d/o late Sukhdev Mistri, aged about 03 years, All are through their natural guardian mother appellant No.1. All R/o P.V. Camp No.04, Kapsi, tahsil Pakhanjur, distrit North Bastar Kanker C.G. VERSUS 1 Deepankar Kundu s/o C.N. Kundu, aged about 37 years, r/o Tahsil Pakhanjur, district Kanker C.G. (Ownerofvehicle) ' The New India Insurancg Company Limited, near Jhankar Talkies, Jaipur Road, Jagdalplur, district Bastar C.G. (Insurer) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. ' Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. Respondents [ './vss^ "'% .^¥ .A.C.No. 1397 of 2009 ORDER ith ^•y (14InSeptember,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 30.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.37/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,26,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor daughters of deceased Sukhdev Mistri, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- 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 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax bearing registration No. C.G. 04/H-3093 liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of.the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income presctibed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd 6f Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' M.A.C.No. 1397 of 2009 /'> dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sukhdev Mistri in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- only. 6) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) 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. •#' • N M.A.C.No.1397of2009 ,& '•f. 8) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sukhdev Mistri used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as Mason, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 11) Considering that deceased Sukhdev Mistri was aged about 40 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 labour in the year 2006. 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. 12) 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. 13) Considering that deceased Sukhdev Mistri was aged about 40 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Cburt in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus M.A.C.No. 1397 of 2009 Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. 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 consori:ium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sukhdev Mistri 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 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. 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 compensatjon of Rs.83,000/-at Rs.8,000/-. • 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in pari:. The compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- with further quantified M.A.C.No. 1397 of 2009 amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/-. 18) Respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.91,000/- (Rs.83,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- tice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge