^7^:F.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^° CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. € Appellants Claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1046 of 2008. 1 Smt. Ganeshiya Bai aged 32 years, w/o Raju Kurmi 2 Pramod Kumar age 1 1 yrs. s/o Raju Kurmi. 3. Mukesh Kumar age 10 yrs. s/o Raju Kurmi. 4. Suresh Kumar age 9 yrs s/o Raju Kurmi. 5. Dinesh Kumar age 7 yrs. s/o Raju Kurmi. 6. Raj Kumar age 3 yrs. s/o Raju Kurmi. Appellant No. 2 to 7 are minor through guardian mother Smt. Ganeshiya Bai w/o late Raju Kurmi. All resident of Jhopadapara Sirgitti, P.0. Tarbahar Tahsil & distt. Bilaspur C.G. 7. Kamlesh Kumar s/o late Raju Kurmi minor through guardian mother Smt. Ganeshiya Bai w/o late Raju Kurmi. R/o Jhopdapara Sirgitti P.S. TarbaharTah. & Distt. BilaspurC.G. VERSUS Respondents Non applicants Ballu @ Nagendra age 40 yrs. s/o Radhemohan Mahant Caste Criti, r/o Poddar behind factor sitamani Korba Thana Kotwali Tah. & distt. Korba (Driver) 2. Smt. Savitri Upadhyay w/o Shri L. Upadhyay r/o Gupta Gali Korba Tahsil & Distt. Korba (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited R-B Traders 1st Floor Stadium Road Korba Tahsil & Distt. Korba C.G. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20th June, 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, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 177/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Raju Kurmi, by filing a claim petition urtder Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 09.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. I 1 ^Y "^y ^»»». 3) The Tribunal on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Raju Kurmi died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.02.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.- 12-ZK/0117; as the above offending vehicle Jeep on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 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 multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Raju Kurmi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ^ ^-^' 6) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, 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; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- only. 7) Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1 ,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts andcircumstances of the present case. 8) 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Raju Kurmi used to earn Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Hamal in Railways, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per .^^T .^''y^^ month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthedeceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2007 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Raju Kurmi was aged about 33 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 2007. 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. 13) 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. 14) Considering that deceased Raju Kurmi was aged about 33 years and his widow Smt. Ganeshiya Bai was shown to be 32 years of age, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 16 the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards /^::\ -&y^ 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.2,71,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Raju Kurmi in the motor accident. 16) 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. 17) 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.76,000/- at Rs.9,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunalis enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rs.76,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of iriterest • K^ ^ ^ -. ^ ^ •m^^ ^ •T— •^/ ^ subbu on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as tq costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge JQ