HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH . CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE 8HRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 284 of 2005 1. Jamuna Bai wd/o late Mouji Ram gupta, aged 35 years, by caste Kolta, occupation House wife, resident of Village Amaghat, Tahsi! Gharghoda district Raigarh C.G. . Ravindra Kumar Gupta s/o Iate Mouji Ram Gupta, aged’11 years. 3. Ku. Rajni d/o late Mouji Ram Gupta, aged about 4 years, Ali resident of ViHage Amaghat Tahsil Gharghoda, district Raigarh CG. (Appeiiant No.2 and 3 are minors through‘ natural guardian mother Jamuna Bai wd/o iate Mouji Ram Gupta) Appellants VERSUS Respondents 1. The Manager, S.B.R.C. Balaji, Transport Company Gerwanii Tahsii and District Raigarh C.G. 2. Satyendra Tiwari slo Mohan Lal Tiwari, viliage Mahima, Post Pandariya, district Rewa (M.P.) 3. United india insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager United india Company Limited, 68 i.C.C. Transport Nagar Korba District Korba C.G. MISS. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Present: Shn Awadh Trlpathi and Shn Vikas Pradhan counsel for the appeHants None for respondents No 1 and 2 Shn Shree Kumar Agrawal Senior Counsel With Shn G V K Rao counsel for respondent No 3 ORDER (1am January, 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 Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.1 1 .2004, passed in Claim Case No.54/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.14,48,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Mouji Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 15.11.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,87,000/— 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 close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it h'eld that deceased Mouji Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.1 1 .2001; the accident occurreddue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No. M.P.55J- 0003; though the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accidentyvas insuredrwith the United India insurance Company \ \ Limited, as the driving license of the driver of the Dumper was fake, the insurer of the Dumper was directed to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the Dumper by initiating separate proceedings. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1 ,500/- per month. By deducting 1/3” of Rs.1 ,500i- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants‘ dependency was assessed at Rs.1 ,OOOI- per month and Rs.12,000/~ per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000!— with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1 ,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/-, under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,87,000I- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Mouji Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,87,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Awath Tripathi and Shri Vikas Pradhan, 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.1,500/~ per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,87,000/— only. 6) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United lndia Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,87j000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7) In a motor accident claim case, what is important isthat, 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 neithervbe a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,87,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimants pteaded that deceased Mouji Ram used to earn Rs.3,700/- per month by working as Khalasl/ Helper in the Truck, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The owner of the Truck was not examined by the claimants before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.3,700/— per month as pleaded by them in the claim petition. AW1 Jamuna Bai, widow of the deceased, on the other hand, deposed in. her evidence before the Tribunal that her husband used to earn Rs.4,500/— per month as helper. In this state of discrepant pleading and evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceasegiw a ' /// \ ,.:. \ \ 10) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs‘18,000/— per annum in the year 2001 is certaihly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. I 11) Considering that deceased Mouji Ram was aged about 38 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he couid have easiiy earned Rs.70-‘75/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— per month and R‘s.24,000/-p‘er annum. 12) By deducting the usual 113'“ of Rs.24,000/— toWards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is, assessed at Rs.1 6,000/— per annum. 13) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the present case. 14) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1'6,000/- with the multiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,08,000/-. 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 widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,23,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Mouji Ram in the motor accident. ’15) 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 // \ / g \ amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. > 16) Considering aii 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 thematter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.36,000/- at Rs.4,000/—. 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.1,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000l— on the enhanced arnpunt of compensation of Rs.36,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 the United lndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.40,000/— (Rs.36,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.4,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.36,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. subbu 19) No order as to costs. Sd/— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha , Chief Justice ./ \ Judge