^ f^ ^ ^. ..^^ i EKr.sS^y 1 ^iiir HIGH COURT OF C»ttlATT(SGWlHAT_B|L^PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM^ HON'BLE SHRt RAJE6V GUPTA, CJ. HON'K.ESWU SUNU. KUMW SINHA,J. Aoiiellants Claimants Respontfents Non-Cjaimants j... Misc. Appetd No. 1®S4efa)03 1. Smt. Kusum Agrfflwat, aged at»ut 33 years, W/o late Shri Naresh ^rawal. 2. Manish Agrawal, aged abeut 12 years, S/o late Shri Naresh Agrawal. 3. N^ia Agrawal, s^ed about 9 years, D/o !ate Shri Nsu-esh Agcawal , (On behalf of appellants no.2 a»wl 3, ttirough legal Guardian awellant no.1) AH resldent of Quarter No?- H-1 , Rajw Nagar, Poltee Stediai Pandri (MtSva), Raipur, Tah^l & Distrtet Rai^ir (C.G.) Versys 1. Sanjay Agrawrerf, aged about 28 years, S/o !ate Shri Ram Gopcri ^rawal, resident of Nahar Para, near Go^iAtta ChaMd, Raipur, TahsU & District Raipur (C,G.) 2. Arun Agrawal, aged abwrt 26 ^ars, S/o Dayaram Agrawal, readeiti of Nagar, PoHce Station - Pandrt, Tahsit & District Rsttpw(C.G.} 3. The Natlonat tnsurance COTnpany Limtted, Uirough Branch ManaglBr, the National Insuramce Cofiyany t.inmted, City Branch OfRce No.2, Na'irin l^sGrar, Raipur, Tahsil & DistrkA Raipur (G.j©.) Memo ofaDDealunderSectton 17Softt»MotorVdiMtesJtet Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, leamal couireel^! <w the appellanls. I None for res^ondents No. 1 & 2 ttwugh serveGl. Shri Raj AMfflsSil, leamed counsei ft)rSr^p<x^erd NO^. '% ,|8all '•s v>Sf/ 3^ asaia^ f] ORDER (23rd August, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by fteijeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal ftw enhancement of the -y - compensation awareled by the Fin^ Addfttonal Motor Aceldait Ctaims Tribunal, Raipwr, (Tcy short the Tribunal') vide awasl dated 02-09-2003, passed in ClaimCase No.'i29<]S 200&. 2) As agafnst the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- elaimed by the appellants/ clalmants, unfortunate vwdow anct minor oWldren of deceased Naresh Agrawal by flling a claim p^ition unda- Sec^ion 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the nwtor accidenton 07.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,21,28^- ES compensation alor^ wfth interest @ 6% per anmim from the date of fillng of the claim petition tilt the date of aetual p^ment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scruttny of the ertfre evidence ted before it held that deceased Naresh Agrawal died on accotmt of injuries sustained by him in the motor accktent on 07.04.2002; ttie accldent occurred due to the rash/hegligent driving of the driwr of the offending vehlcte Maruti Van bearing regirtration No. C.G. (WA-7057, jn which the deceased was travelling; as the ofFending vehicte Maruti Van on the date ofthe acciderrtwas inaired wfth the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Comf»ny could not estaUish any breach of the poltey conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. fe 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal again^ e award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the Incorrre of tte cteeessKl at Rs.52,160/- psr annum. By deducting 1^d of e abwe amount towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.34,774/- pw annim. By muniplying the annuat dependency of Rs.34,77^- witti the multiplier of 12, the compensation was woriced oit to Rs.4,17,288/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeraleiyens^ and Rs.2,000/- towante loss of consorttum to the widow, the Tnbunal swrarded a total sum of Rs.4,21,2re/- as oompensatton to the claimants for the death of deceased Naresh Agrawal in the motor accktent. The Tribunal fuither directed payment of interest on the above amountof compensation of Rs.4,21,288/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of fteclahn petition Ull the date @f actual payment. 6) Shri Shh/endu Parelya, leamed counset for the appdlartts submitted that the Tribunal has erred in seteetif^ the lower muKiplierof12; and in awarding lowcompen8irttonofRs.4,21,2^- only. 7) Shri Raj Awasthl, leamed counsel for responderrt No.3 Nationat Insurance Company Limited, on the rtter hamt siyported the award and contended that the Trtbunal has been quite liberal in .^S%1, % v""^ ^ awardingsubstantial amount of Rs.4,21,288/- as con^ensatlon to the ctaimants. 8) In a motor sfficident ctaim case, what !s important is ttiat, the compensation to be awarded by the C<MirtsfTrfbunats should bejust and proper compensation in the facts aod cN'cumsfan'ices o»the case. It should neither be a meager amount of rawnpensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whrther the Gompensation of Rs.4,21,288/- awarded by the Tribunal isj just and proper compensation in the fadte and circumslances ofthe present case. 10) The claimants pteaded that deceased Nare^i ^rawal used to eam Rs.6,000/- per month from his Business. In support of ttiew above plea, the claimants flled a copy of the income-tsw retum of deceased Nar^h Agrawal for the assessment year 2001-2002 before the Tribunal, which was exhibited as Ex.R®. This hTCome- tax retum reveals that ttw deceased in the retewint year had income of Rs.48,000/- from hls buslness. The other sum of Rs.3,700/- has been shovm as incomefrom other sources,whteh in all likelihood must be eifter rental Income or in<»mefrom interest. Thus, the income of the decea^ from the profession i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum was relevant for the purpose of computaUOTi of the compensation payable to the claimants. We, therefbre, recmnpute the compensatlon taMng the irrewne of the deceased at Rs.48,OOW- per annum. ii 1 •lUNMNN •ls^h. 't''39esf!»y /^%1 11) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.48,00(V- towards the personal e3q}enses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.32,000/- per annum. 12) Consrelering ttie age <rf the decesBed, hte wktcw auxl thelr chiMren, we are of the opini<m that mulUplier of 15 woukt be appropriate In the present case. 13) By multiplylng the annuat etependency of Rs.^,000/- wiNiAe multiplier of 15, the compensatlonworks out to Rs.4,80,0(XV-. The claimante are further entttled to receive Rs.5,OOOA- towards funerat expenses; Rs.5,000/- for Ires of <»nsortium to the wtdow; aml Rs.5,000/- for toss of ^ate. The ctalmante, thus, beGome entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.4,95,000/- as etxnpensaUcm <w the death of deceased Naresh Agrawal in the motoraccident. 14) Leamed counsel for the parties submitted thatwUi a vfewto avoid any possibte dispute between the parttes about e palod for which the claimants are entitled to rec^ve intereston the aihanwd amount of compensation, the amount of trterest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantifled in this appeal itsetf. 15) Considering all the retevant aspads of the matter-lncludhig the delay io disposal of tt»clalm peffiion and the present ajqwal and the fact thsrt the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantlfy the amount of irrteffest on the enhanced amount of compei^ton of Rs.73,712/- srt Rs.7,288/- .•-[: '-. :j --»»]!•:•! aulctou M' 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appKil filed by the aCTiellante/ clafmants fbr enhancement of the compCTsatlon fs allowed in part. The compensatton of Rs.4,21,288/- awarded by the Tribunal is ^nhanced to Rs.4,95,000/- vrith further quanUfied amount of interest of Rs.7,288/- on the enhanced amount of compensatton of Rs.73,712/-. 17) Respondent No.3 The Nationat (nsurance Gompsny Limited is granted three months' time for depositing U» total sum ol Rs.81,000/- (Rs.73,712/- towards entunced amount oS compensation + Rs.7,288/- towards quantified amount of (nterest on the enhanced amount of compensation ef F(s.73,712/-) before the concemtng Claims Tribunat. 18) No order as to coste. Sd/- Quef Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge