JCJ. MiscADpeal No.452of 3 Leeta Bai, Wd/o Late Dujedas Sahu, aged about 34 years Ku. Nandkumari D/o Late Dujedas, ?geci 17 years Ku Maheshwari, D/o Late Dujedas, aged 13years 4 Ku Kanti, D/o Late 'Dujedas, aged 14 ^Lafe^@ujedas,-i:agea 9 •l'(tt?'f3Hnita, years Appellants No.2 to 5 through Natural Guardian Mother Leeta Bal Wd/o Late DujedasSahu Alf R/o Viilage Ghughwa (Salhe), PS Dongargaon, Dsstt Rajnandgaon (CG) Harishanker @ Tgfeku, Sift; Chaitram Vis,h%*arma, :aged!a!aeuf,3t years, R/o Befigargarh, Distt iaon'(€G)'l:'</ 2" Gho@s,ingh, S/s DBiSingh, abNt:?®tysars,:R/o^yarti NG.1S8,, Tliethwarpara, !3isttRajnandgaoni(C©) •3, . The-@ri6ntaLAssuran(3e:ComRany't-td., ThFQugh;TDpi'isioriaji jManager,' Brarich Qffie^ ^alviya riagar, Dyrg^{©©);.'';~ r--£: Rajput, aged No.S, House Donga(garh ;g' i.District St '^.:-w.{^ ^ liscelianeous Appeal underSectjon 173 of Motor Vehide Act Shri Gautam Kshetrapal, counsel for theappellants. None for respondents No.1 and2 thouahserved. ShriAvinash Mishra, coynselforrespondentNo.3. >th :! -r 'I:^;l The following order of the Court was passed by This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional MptonAccident Claims Tribynai, Rajnandgaon^for'short 'fl'ieTribi.ihal') vide award dated 06.01.2004, passed iri Claim Case No.25/2001. 2) As against the compensation of 7,95,000/- ciaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow'and minor daughtere of deceased Dujedas Sahu by flling a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor yehiclesAct, for his deafh in fhe motQracGident on 08.12.2000, the Tribunalawarded atotal sum ofRs.T,47,000/- Ss compensation along witti ihterest @ 6% per annum frorn the date of the.filing ofthe claim petition.titl the date of actual payment. •' '.'../' ,.•".' ' • " . ; . • • .. •'•.:'."••• '.'' •' • ' .•..•. •; ••;. - • •..:•••.'••••:" 3) The Tribuoal on a cjose scrutiny ofthe entire evidence led before it held that jdeceasea Dujedas Sahu died on account of the injyries sustained by him in thefflotor accident ori 08.12.2000; the aeciaentioceurred 9ueto^sh.and neglrgent driving'oftheidFiverGf ^•:the ' offending • vehicle Minjbus - bearing registration NO.MP-24/G/3716; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not estabiish any breach of the policy conditiohs, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation ofthe claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal hayenow attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deduetlng 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expensesofthedeceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs:10,QOO/- per annurrt. By multi|3tying; the annua! dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a totalsum of Rs.1,47,000/- as compensation ib the claimants for the death of deceased Dujedas Sahu in the motor sccident. The Tribunal further directed paymeht of interest on the above amountofcompensationQfRs.1,47,000/-@ 6% per annum from the ^ate of the filing of the claim petition till;the date of actual •- .^ :/'•:••'•••:'•"••• ''• " : ;-'- '• ':. ••: •• ". '•••••. ' ' • • •• •'':•. •: " • • •":'';..::•••• . •'' . ••..'• -..'. • payment. / 6) Shri Gautam Kshetrapal,"learned eounsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunah has aerred in nQt aceepting the claimants' evicienee aboyt.;the' income of fhe deceased, in assessing hisincom^ at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; !in selecting ^'^:. 4 the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- only. - 7) Shri Avinash. Mishra, iearned counsei'fbr respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, thecompensationof Rs.1,47,OOG/- awarded by the Tribynal is just and proper eompensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 8) In a motoraccident claimcasewhat is important is that the compensation to he awarded hy the Courts^Tribunals shoyid be just and propercompensation In the facts and circumstanees of the case. It should neitherbeameageramountofcompensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, w/e shali examine as to whether the eompensation of Rs.1,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compehsationinthefactsandGireumstancesofthepresentcase. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Dujedas Sahu used to earn Rs.1,200/- per month iTom hisi ^ervice and he tiad additiphai income from his agrieulture lahds,|the evidence ied in that behalf was notof-elinchirig naturK We, therefore, do not find any faultin theapproaeh oftheTribtin&I ihdiseardingthe elaimants' evidenee abouttheinGomeopthedeceased. I 11) Nevertheless, the ihcome of the deceasecf assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,OOQ/- per;annum in the year 2000 is eertainly on the lowersideand requiresrieeonsideFation. '.---^u'-' .^. t.ss^y^ // sy w-a^- fzss 5 12) Considering that deceased Dujedas Sahu was aged about 35 years, we are ofthe opinion that hecould have easiiy earned Rs.2,000/- per month even by working as an un-skilled labbur in the year 2000. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the inc6me ofthe deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/-per annum. 13) By deducting the usual l/3rd of Rs.24,000/- tQward the personal expenses ofthe cleceased, the claimants' dependeneyis assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Gonsidering the age of the deceased, hiswidow and their children, we are of the opinion, that multiptier of 14 would be appropriate inthe pregentcase, 15) By multipiylngthe annual dependencyof Rs.1 6,000/- with the multipiier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to reeeive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortlym to the widow and Rs.5,000/- for loss ofestate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to recelve a totai sum of Rs,2,39,000/- as compensation for the death ofdeeeased Dujedas Sahu in the motoraeeidenf. 16) Learnedcounsel fortheparfiessubmittedthatwith aviewto •-.../•• ••..'•'••'••' : ^ • • '•.'•• '.' • • . '. ' '•• •.'.': • ;.'"••• " .: •;. . . • •-..„_.: - avoid ahy possible dispute between the parties a&out the period for which the ciaimants areentitied to recelve intereston the enhanced amount Qf compensation, fhe amouiit 6f interest on the enhanced amountof compensation maybe quantified inthisappeal iteelf. 17) Considering atl the releyant aspects of the matter includins the delayj in disposal oftheclaim petition and the present appeal 1 1 1 6 order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice 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.92,000/'- at Rs.9,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! fiied by the claimants for enhancement ofthe compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,39,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of eompensation of Rs.92,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,01,000/- (Rs.92,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.92,000/-) before the concemina Claims Tribunal. —J- -Ji.— Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Jiidge