hUGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH ,CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellants Claimants Respondents JV!isc.AppeaUClJlilo^44L of^ 2011 1. Gopi Ram Sendre s/o late Shri Matu Ram Sendre, aged about 48 years, 2. Sukanti Bai w/o Gopi Ram Sendre, aged about 32 years, Both are resident of Thana para Ward No.2, Baghbahara, district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS 1. Tarun Kumar Yadav s/o Narhari Yadav, aged about 38 years, r/o Challan Para Thana Raja Khariyar, district Nayapara (Orissa) (Driver of alleged bus bearing registration No. O.R. 26/7343) 2. Chandra Shekhar Singh s/o Surendra Singh, r/o Prince Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Tikra Para Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Owner of alleged bus bearing registration No.^O.R. 26/7343) 3. Chola; Mandal M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, near Railway Crossing HDFC Bank building Raipur district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of alleged bus bearing registration No. O.R. 26/7343) Memo of apReal under^ectiorLl73 of h/lotor Vehicle Act .A.C.No.44of2011 Present: Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Anil Das Kuldeep, counsel for the appellants. Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER »nd (02"aDecember,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 Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.11.2010, passed in Claim Case No.57/2010. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,20,000/- claimed by the appellants/ daimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Mukesh Sendre, byfiling a claim petition underSection 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for his death on 16.02.2010 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.02.2010, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,550/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close serutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants' son Mukesh Sendre died on 16.02.2010 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.02.2010; the deceased himself and the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.O.R.26/7343 were equally responsible for the accident; as the M.A.C. No.44of2011 above Bus on the date of the accident, was insured with the Chola Mandal M.S. General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could riot establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was Jiable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependencyof Rs.8,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.49,100/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for conveyance, attendant and other incidental expenses, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,39.100/-. As deceased Mukesh Sendre himself was found responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal reduced the above amount by 50% and assessed the compensation at Rs.69,550/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.22,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,550/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Mukesh Sendre in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.91,550/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Anil Das Kuldeep, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly MAC.No. 44 of 2011 assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum, it has erred in holding that deceased Mukesh Sendre also equally contributed to the accident; in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.91,550/-only. 6) Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Chola Mandal M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.91,5507- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Mukesh Sendre also equally contributed to the accident is concerned, we gather from the material available in the Tribunal's records that deceased- Mukesh Sendre at the time of the accident was standing by the side of the road and the offending vehicle Bus dashed him from behind. The driver of the Bus neither filed any written statement before the Tribunal alleging that deceased Mukesh Sendre was standing in the middle of the road nor the driver entered in the witness-box before the Tribunal M.A.C.No.44of2011 ^, for deposing to that effect. The claimants examined AW-2 Jitendra Tandi as an eyewitness of the unfortunate accident wherein the claimants' son Mukesh Sendre lost his life. We do not find even an iota of evidence in his statement which may in any manner even suggest any negligence of deceased Mukesh Sendre. 9) On a perusal of paras 13 to 16 of the impugned award, we gather that the Tribunal has recorded the finding of contributory negligence on conjectures and surmises alone. 10) On the factual scenario and the material available in the Tribunal's records including the contents of the First Information Report, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that deceased Mukesh Sendre was negligent and equally contributed to the accident cannot legally be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the above finding and hold that the driver of the offending vehicle Bus was wholly responsible for the accident. The insurer of the Bus, as such, is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the daimants. 11) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) Though the claimants pleaded that their son Mukesh Sendre used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by working as Sweeper in Nagar Panchayat, Baghbehra, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per M.A.C.No.44of2011 month. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum.. 13) The deduction of 2/3 of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses, in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus IVIohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, cannot be upheld and has to be modified to the extent that only 50% of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. We, therefore, assess the claimants' dependency at Rs.12,000/- per annum by deducting 50% of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 14) The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal is perfectly inline with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731 wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parerts of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 12.000/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.49,100/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimants become entitled to .A.C.No.44of2011 receive a total sum of Rs.1,79.100/- as compensation for the death oftheir son Mukesh Sendre 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 entitted 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 daim petition, 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.87,550/- at Rs.8,450/-. 18) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in pari:. By setting aside the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal, the compensation of Rs.91,550/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,79.100/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,450/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.87.550/-. 19) Respondent No.3 Chola Mandal M.S. General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.96,000/- (Rupees ninety-six thousand only) (Rs.87,550/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,450/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced AC.No.44of2011 amount of compensation of Rs.87,550/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu