0 w f.1 ^f' >Li .'/•; ^-.u <~ 2. Dujelai, aged about 26 years, son of late Shi late Shri Sukhr.am; Vijay Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of late Shri Sukhrarn; t A!l castes of Kanvi'ar, and resident of Viilage Nagrada, Police Station Saradwar, Tahsil Sakti, district Janjgir-Champa C.G. Hespondents Ashwani Kumar Dadsena, son of late Shri D.R. Dadsena, resident of iaioda Bazar, district Raipur C.G. 2. Karuna Slngh Thakur, aged about 28 years, son of Shri B.S. Thak'ur, resident of Tilda, Tahsli Baloda azar, district Raipur C.G. 3. The New India Insurance Company Raiour, Tahsil Raiour C.G. IVilS^ Present: Shri Shashl Bhushan, counset forthe appellants. Ms. M. Asha, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. :?:^-' /;,'•-% '^ WS&K, '%a>.xy •estSEsiSfy' MAth order of the Court was passed by This is claimants' appea! for enhancement of the sensatlon awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims 'ribunal, Saktl, district awai 2) laspur (for short 'the Tribuna!') vide in Claim Case No.19/2005. As agatnst the comp 'ppellants/ dalmants, ised Sukhram, by fiiinc isation of Rs.9,83,500/'- claimed by unfortunate •^idow and sons of a claim petition under Sectlon 166 of 18.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50, compensation a!on{ offiilna ofthe ciaim 3) The Tribuna! on before it held that interest @ 6% per annum from tiil the date of actua! payment. dose scrutiny of the entire evlder Sukhram died on account injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 18.03.2005; the accldent occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending . vehicle Bus bearing registratlon No,C.G.07/E/0150; as the above offending vehicles Bus, on the date of the acddent was insured wit.h the New india Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was llable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. ..^aiia.. ^ .SVsf ..-,f <tt%s-.. 4) As t'ne respondents have not filed any appeai 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 deductlng 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personai expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multlpiying the annua! dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multipller of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,30,000/-. By awardina further sum of Rs.20,000./- other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50.000./- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Sukhram in the motor acch T'ne Tribuna! further directei payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of nling of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunai has erred in not accepting the cia'mants' evidence about t'ne income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,50,000/- oniy. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the New india Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the comoensation i"^ "'^ 'lt<S-iT*'L'. of Rs.1,50.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) Ms. M. Asha, learned counsei for respondents No. 1 and 2 8iso supported the award. 9) in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded bv the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances the case. It should neither be -a mea.qer amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shal! examine as to whether theicompensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded bv the Tribuna! is lust and compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe pr 11) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Sukhram used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as Tractor driver, the evidence !ed In that behalf was not of clinching nature. No driving li oroper the deceased vi/as Droduced before the Tribuna! to estabiish that he was driver by profession. No other cogent and reiiabie evidence was ied before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. In this state of evidenc", we do not find any fauit in the approach of the Tribuna! in discarding the daimants' evidence about the income the dsceased assessed by the in the year 2005 is certainiy on of the dece; • -*( 12) Nevertheiess, the income of Tribunal at Rs.15.000/- per annum the lowsr side and reauires reconsideration. :r •'.'. u. ^-. 1 13) Considering that deceased Sukhram was aged about 45 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilied iabour. VA/e, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,0007- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expensss of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 15) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal consldering the age of the deceased, his widow and their sons; in our pptnion, is appropriate. 16) By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitiplier of 13 the compensation works out to Rs.2,08,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards ,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5, loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, be entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,23,000/'- as compen for the death of deceased Sukhram in the motor accldent. >ation 17) Learned counse! for the'parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute behween the parties about the period for which the ciaimants are entit'ed to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this i! ii-calf appeai rtseiT. 18) Considering all the reievant aspects of the matter, including the deiay in disposal of the claim petition, and the present appeai and the faci that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delav in the matter, we quantify the amount of Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/- at Rs.7,000/'-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancenrent of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,23,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-. 20) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Llmited is granted three months' tlrne for depositing the total sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.73,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.73,000/-) before the concemina Ciaims Tribunal. 211 No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Cuandrakar Jiidge