HSGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBSLASPUR DSV!S!ON BENCH CORAM: GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J ADpeiSants ^ •^ t.^- Misc ADpeaI (Cl No. 444 of 2006' •1 Shyama Bai Wd/o Late Parmeshwar Sahu aged 30 years 2 Praveen Kumar Sahu W7o Late Parmeshwar aged 15 years 3 Kumari Lokeshwari S/o Late Parmeshwar aged 13 years 4 Hemraj S/'o Late Parmeshwar aged 11 years 5 Lalit Kumar S/o Late; Parmeshwar aaed 9years 6 Amar Singh S/o Bhisambhar Sahu ag^l65years ; 7 Gaindi Bai W7o Amar Singh aged 60 years All residents of village Machandur, Tahsll Charama, Dsstrict Kanker (CG) Versus. 1. Sheikh Farukh S/o Hanif Khan, resldent of Rlsaipara, Ward Dhamtari (GG) 2. Murad Khan S/o Easthar Mohammad, resldent of Ramsagarpara, Dhamtari 3. The OrieRtal Insurance Company Limited, behind Amar Taikies, Dhamtari SVIiscellaneous appeal uEnder Sectlon 173 ofthe EVlGtorVehideAct.188B .. • • •s Present : Shrl Wasim Miya, counsel for the appeiJants. None for respondent No.1 though served. Respondenfs Shri AK Athaley, counsel forrespondent No.3. ORDER (12th November, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunai') vlde award dated 30.07.2005, passed in Claim Case No.451/2004. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs.39,50,000/-, claimed by the appeSlants/claimants, unfortunate wldow, msnor children and parents of deceased Parmeshwar Sahu, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166of the Motor yehides Act, for h'is death in the motor accident on 19.12.2002, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation alo.ng with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition til! the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Wasim Miya, Jearned counsei for the appeilants submitted that the Tribuna! has errsd In not accepting the cialmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing hls income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.170.000/- only. 4) Shrs AK Athatey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, The Orientai Insurance Company Limited 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 3 of Rs.1,70.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) As the respondents have not filed any appea! against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunai that deceased Parmeshwar Sahu died on account ofthe injurles sustained by him in the motoraccident on 19.12.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent drivlng of the driver of the offending vehide jeep; as the offending vehicle jeep on the date ofthe accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurance Compsny was liabie to pay compensation to the claimants, have now attalned finality. That apart, these findings are not under chaiienge before us in this appeaJ. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunat. 6) 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 compensatlon, nor a bonanza. 7) Now, we shai'i examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Parmeshwar Sahu used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month from his dalry, but the evidence ied in that behaif was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunst in 4 discardjng the daimants' evidence about the sncome of the deceased. 9) Nevertheiess, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.15,000/- per annum Is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 10) Deceased Parmeshwar Sahu on the date of'the accident was aged about 34 years. The deceased thus, couid have easily eamed Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum even by working as an un-skilSed Sabour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taklng the income ofthe deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.30,000/- per annum. 11) Bydeductingtheusuai 1/3rdof Rs.30,000/-towards personai expenses ofthedeceased,the claimants' dependency is at Rs.20,000/- perannum. 12) Considering the age of. t'ne deceased, his widow, their children and parents, we are of the opinlon that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the case. 13) By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multipJier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimants are further entltled to'get Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entit!ed to receiye a tptai sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as compensatlon for the death of Parmeshwar Sahu in the motor accldent. 14) Learned counse! for the partles submitted that with a vlew to -/"; avoid any possible dispute between the parties 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 amountof compensatlon may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 15) The accident in the present case wherein deceased Parmeshwar Sahu lost his !ife took place in the'year 2002; the claim petition was filed by the claimants before me Tribunal in the year 2003; the impugned award came to be passed in the year 2005; the present appeai was fited by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finaily declded in the year 2009. 16) Considering aii the relevant factors indudlng the delay in disposa! of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the insurance Company alone'is not to be blamed for the entire deiay In the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- at Rs.15,000/-. 17) For the foregoing reasons, the appea! fited by the clalmants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed In part. The compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is enhanced to Rs.3,15,000/- with further quantjfied amount of interest of Rs.15,0007- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-. 18) Respondent No.3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Is granted three nlonths' time for depositing t'ne total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.1,45,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.15,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 19) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge '-As