HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON’BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. AQQeaI No. 1408 of 2005 Appellants 1. Phoolmatia, W/o Late Ashram aged Claimants about 4O years 2. Sugri Bai, Wlo late Hirasai, aged about 65 years Both R/o \f’iHage - Jilda, PS Khadgawan, Tahsil — Manendragarh, Distt Korea (CG) ‘ VERSUS ~ RespOndents 1. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Banshlal, Aged about 26 years, R/o Godripara, Post — Godripara, B-Type Quarter ‘No.104,APS Chirimiri, Distt Korea (CG) 2. Banshlal, S/o Ram Khitawan, aged about 53 yers, R/o Godripara, Post — Godripara, B-Type Quarter No.104, PS Chirimiri, Distt Korea (CG) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Ltd., Branch Office — Ambikapur, Near Ram Mandir, Post & Tahsil — Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) 4. Phuleshwari Bai, D/o Late Asharam, W/o Babulal, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Thaggaon Doomar Bahara, PS Khadgawan, Tahsil ~— Manendragarh, Distt Korea (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR M . y VEHICLES ACT, 1988 iMrfzv Pa r Present: Ms Sharmila Singhai, counsei for the appellants. Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondents Nb.1 and 2. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shrl Anand Gupta, counsel fOr respondent No.3. ORDER (6th May, 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, Manendragarh, district Korea (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.12/2002. 2) , As against the compensation of Rs.23,61,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and mother of deceased Asharam, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.01 .2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,37,000/— 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 held that deceased Asharam died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.01.2002; the accident occurred due to ras’h and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registratidn No.M.P.— 27/6906; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company a Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained nnality. 5) TheTribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/— per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the 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 V multiplying the annual 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.7,000/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,37,000/— as compensation to the claimants for thecdeath of deceased. Asharam in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,37,000/— @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. — 6) Ms. Sharmila Singh’ai, 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; in selecting b (7” the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,37,000/- only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,37,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the‘present case. 8) Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar and respondent No.2 Banshlal, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Jeep, 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.1,37,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Asharam used ‘ -to earn Rs.1 ,500/— per month as tailor and Rs.36,000/— per annum from agriculture, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, we do not fmd any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ h evidence about the income of the deceased. 12) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Asharam was aged about 45-46 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 2002. 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. 14) 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. 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and mother, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate. 16) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/~ 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.5,000l- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus,‘ become " entitled to receive a total sum of R_s.2,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Asharam in the motor accident. 17) 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 h i l l l i l the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantitied in this appeal itself. 18) 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.86,000/— at Rs.9,000/-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation‘is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,37,000/— awardedby the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/— with further quantified amount‘of interest of Rs.9,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.86,000/—. 20) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.95,000l— (Rs.86,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.86,000/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 21) No order as to costs. K Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge 7 Sd/- padma CHIEF JUSTICE