R A/^A Al isc. Appeal (C) No. 225 of 2007 1. Smt. Duiari Bai Widow of Roshanlal, aged about 28 years. 2. Gangaram Dhruv, S/o Late Roshanlal, aged about 11 years. 3. Jaisingh Dhruv S/o Late Roshantal, aged about 9 years. 4. Rekhram Dhruv S/o Late Roshanla!, aged about 7 years lant No. 2 to 4 since minor through there next friend, mother Smt. Dulari Bai appellant No. 1, widow of Roshanla! Dhruv/, aged about 28 years Itwariram Dhruv S/o Kejuram Dhruw, aged about 60 years. Al! R/o Vill- Sonkara, Teh.S Distt. Dhamtari. Mohamad Raja S/o Mohamad Taj Musalman, R/o Magarload, Teh. Maaarload, Distt. Dhamtari ?CG). 3 Kumar Khandelwal S/o C.R. Khandeiwal R/o Raipur road Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltdi. Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). » '.,' "^^^' Present : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the Shri A.K. Athaiey, counsel for respondent No.3. ith order of the Court was passed This is claimants' a for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.12.2006, passed in Claim Case No.55/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-, claimed by the appeliar.ts/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and father of deceased Roshanlai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor acddent on 05.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,81,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Roshanlal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.02.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-05-ZC/0341; as the above offending vehicle Truck on fhe date of the accident was insured with the Orientai Insurance Company Limited, and the 3 Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was llable to pay the 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 attalned finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 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 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads and Rs.1,000/- towards damage to the cycle, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,81,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Roshanlal in the motor accident. The Tribunal further dlrected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- @ 6% per annum from She date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appeilants 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 ofRs.1,81,000/- only. 4 7) Shri A.K. Athaiey, learned counsel for respondentNo.3, the Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand supported the award and contended Shat as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances 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 shoutd 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 shatl examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- 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 Roshanlal used to earn Rs.150/- per day by working as Hamal in a rice-miil, the evidence led in that behalf was highly discrepsnt. AW1 Smt. Dulari Bai in her cross-examination stated that the income of the deceased varied between Rs.50-150/- per day. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. r 12) Consldering that deceased Roshanlal on the date of the accident was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as unskilled tabour in the year 2005. We, therefore, proppse to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per a'nnum. 13) By deducting the usua! 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) The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, in our opinion, is 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 funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for ioss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. By adding further sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards damage to the cycle, the ctaimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,72,000/'- as compensation for the deafh of deceased Roshanlai 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 entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of 6 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 deiay 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.91,000/- at Rs.9,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,72,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.9,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.91,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance. Company Limited is jranted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.91,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.9,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.91,000/-) before the concerning Clalms Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. —:-'-22il Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu