. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Apneal No.1 1 93 ‘of 2004 1. Meena Bai, Wd/o Rikhi Ram, Ag about 32 years, 2. Prem Lal, S/o Rikhi Ram, aged about 14 years. 3. Shyama Bai, D/o Rikhi Ram, aged about 12 years. kh d Tukeshwar, S/o Rii Ram, age about 1O years. 5. Dam’eshwari, D/o Rikhi Ra’m, aged about 7 years. Appellant No.2 to 5 are Minor through natural guardian mothe Meena Bai, Wd/o Rikhi Ram Sahu, All are by caste Sahu, r/o Village Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appellants Claimant VERSUS Respondent 1. Sarju Ram, S/o Jethu ishwakarma, s V Non-claimants R/o Gokul Pur Ward, Dhamtari, Distt.Dhamtari (C.G.). Anil Kumar, S/o Chandu Lal Jain, r/o ' Shashtri Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). National insurance Company Ltd., Krishna Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG). Gajanand /o Bhuwan Lal Sahu, r/o Kampa, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). s r ‘ S ¢ 5. Jagmohan, S/o Gahgu Ram Sahu, r/o Mohadi Hadaband, Tahsil & Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.). 6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.). Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. a Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi and'Shri Vikas Pradhan, counsel l forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 ,2,4 and 5. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.6. ORDER (oath March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed By Ra‘jeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the ompensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.07.2004, passed in Claim Case No.94/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Rikhi Ram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in th‘e motor accident on 21.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% perannum in‘the event of the insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month of the passing of the award. h c 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Rikhi Ram died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.04.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.M.P.23— D/0540; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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 claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now ‘ attained finality. 5)r The Tribunal 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-163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual. dependency of. Rs.10,000/— with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.J,70,000/;_. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as compensation to‘the claimants for the death of deceased Rikhi Ram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the _ ‘ r7 “.39.:- above amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/— @ 6% per annum in the event of the insurer’s failure to pay the amount 9f compensation within one month of the, passing of the award. 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsei for the appeiiants 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 not awarding any sum towards loss of estate and loss of consortium to the widow; in awarding low amount of Rs.2,000/— s towards funeral expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,72,000/— only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the' National ”Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, 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, 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. 8) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel . for respondent No.6, the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Stationary Truck, 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 @7 case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor 4. a Bonanza. 10) 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. 11) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Rikhi Ram used to earn Rs.4,500/— per month as Contractor, no cogent and reiiabie evidence was ied before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,500/— per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ 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 2001 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 13) Considering that deceased Rikhi Ram, on the date of the accident, was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2001 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re—co‘mpute 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 R's‘.24,000/- ‘towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. r :“WVJ 15) Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multipiier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By muitiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.16,000/-‘ with ¢ the muitipiier 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 consortium 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 Rikhi Ram in the motor accident. l 17) 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. 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 compensaflon of Rs.83,000/— at Rs.8,000l-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is o . enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/— with further quantified amount of interes of Rs.8,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited i granted three months‘ time for depositing enhanced amount compensation + Rst8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/—) befor the concerning Claims Tribunai. s the total sum of of , Rs.91 ,000/- (Rs.83,000/- towards on the enhanced 21) No order as to costs. \Q:Q\ \i-, Sd/- ELChierf Justice t e t i