HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISEON BENC skppeiiants/ Claimants u- CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHR! SUML KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 461 of 2003 1. Smt. Arifa Khatun widow of late Shri Moh. Salam Ahemad, aged about 53 years. Kumari Yasmin aged about 23 years, Kummi Nuri Tabassum aged about, 21 years, Moh. Sazid aged about 25 years, All residence of Deepak Chowk, Purena, BhiEai-3, Post Bhiiai, Distt. Durg(C‘G.) ' VERSUS Shivnandan Singh S/o. Shri Fuisai Gand. Aged about‘u'nknown Rio. Viilage Sa!ka, Tahsi! Surajpur, distt‘ Sarguja (CLGJ Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o.’ Shri Bhola Prasad Agarwa! aged about 50'ye’ars R/o. Vi!!age Nehru Park Road Surajpur, distt. Sarguja (CG) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Medical Celiege Road, 'Tahs‘ii Raipur Distt. Raipur 'C.G.) The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office Sadar Road, Ambikapur, disti. Sarguja (C.G.) Misc. Appeal under Section 1?3 of Motor Vehicles Act Resnondents Present : Shri Mano} Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for ‘ the appellants H ( None for respondents No 1 & 2 Shri AK. Athaley, counsei for respondents No 3 & 4 ORDER (23th October, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by §rgeev Guytag C.J. This is ciairnants’ appeai for enhancement of the ccmpe‘nsation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident C aims Tribunai Raipur (for short, V‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 0d 04 2003 passed in Ciaim Case No 75 of 2002 2) As againsi ine comoensation of Rs 13 85 160!- claimed by the appellants! claimants unfortunate Widow, unmarried daughters a and maior son of deceased Moh Saiam Ahemad, by filing a claim ielliion ' the motor under accident Sectlon on 166 28 of 09 the 2001 Motor the Vehicles Tribunal Ac‘t;for awarded his a death total sum of Rs 55 OOOI— as compensation along With interest @ 7% per annum from the date of frlrng of the clarm petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led hefore it held that deceased Moh Salam Ahemad died on account of the rnrunes sustained by him rn the motor accident on 28 09 2001 the accident occurred due to rash and neglrgent drivrnd of the driver of the offending vehrcle Tata Sumo bearing redistratron No M P-27/B—2920 as the above offendino vehicle Tata $umo on the date of the accident was Insured wrth the Onental insurance Company Limited and the lnsurance Combanv ‘ could not establish any breach of the policy co‘ndit50ns, the 1 msurance Company was Hable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 4) r As the' respondents have not flied any appea! against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality §). The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. on the basis of the notional income prescribed inathe Second Schedule under Section i63—A of the I Meter Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3“ of Rs.15,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased,‘ the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rsi 0,000/- per annum. By muitipiying‘the annual ldeoendency' at Rsicoow. with the multiplier 'of 5 the compensation was worked out to Rs 50 000/— By awardlng further sum of Rs 5 000/- under other heads the Tribunal awarded a total sum of R555 ODO/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Moh Salam Ahemad tn the motor acoldent The Trlbunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs‘55,000l— @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. V r t ' 6) _ Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel oréthe appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not ccepting the ciaimants’ evidence about the income of the eceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000!— per annurn l la ld i ; pnly in the year 2001 on the basis of the notional income i i l i i " I ' i g } f j J prescribed m the Second Scheduie under Section 163 A of the ‘ Motor Vehlvies Act m selecting the lower mumpher of 5 and m awarding low compensation of Rs 55 OOQ/— only 7‘) Shn A K Athaley, loarned counsel for respondents No 3 & 4 the Insurer of the offendmg vehlcle Tate Sumo on the other hand supported'the award and contended that as the deceased on the date of the accident Was an old and infirm person aged about 65 years and was not having any regular income, the compensation of Rs55‘000f— awarded by the Tribunat is just and proper . compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) L ln a motor' accident claim case, what is important is that, the pompensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the ase lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor Bonanza. a f) Nowwe shali examine as to whether the compensation of R}8 55 OOOJ- awarded by the Tribunai is Just and proper comoensation in the facts and Circumstances of the oresent case 10) True the ciaimants pleaded that deceased Moh Salam Ahemad used to earn Rs5000f— per month from practice as Homeopathy Doctor and further amount of Rs.3,135/- per month fromf tuition, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. in this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the 4 l l r Toroachof the Tribunal in discarding the ciaimants‘ evidence a out the income of the deceased l l i t i l I i l ’ W, c ) H Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! in the year 2001 at Rs.15,000/- per annum is certainry on {the lower side and requires reconsideration 12) Considering the educationai quaiifications of the deceased and the type of occupation he was carrying on and his age, we are of the opinion that the Tribune! ought to have‘éssessed his income i to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Re.30,000l-per annum. '13) By deducting the usuai 1/3” of Rs.30,DOD/i— towards the persona! expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.20,000!- per annum. p4) Considering that deceased Moh. Saiam Ahemad on the date pf the accident was aged about 62~63 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of ? would be appropriate in the present case in View t of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of $aria Verma {Stat} and Others Versus Deihi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein multiplier of 7 has been prescribed for the age group between 61-65 years. a5) By multipiying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/-'with the tnuttiplier of 7, the compensation works out to Rs.1,40,000/-. The plair‘oants are further‘entijled to receive Rs.5,0QOI- towards funeral iexpenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of - ponsodium i to the widow. The ciaimants, thus, become entitled to Eimthe year 2001 at Rs.30,000/- per annum. We, therefore; propose l i i i i reCeive a total sum of R31 ,55,0DO/— as compensation for the death of deceased Moh. Salam Ahemad in the motor accident. ' 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View 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 ‘ . amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itseif. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. ‘17): Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal; w and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed ifor l the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest ion i the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/— at i Rs.10,000/-. i i i l t r i l i i EThe compensation of Rs.55,00D/— awarded by the Tribunai is ‘ enhanced to Rs.1 ,55,000f— with further quantified amount of interest :of Rs.10,000f- on the enhanced amount of compensation of 3 Rs.1 ,O0,000/—. e, : i i 19g, Respondents No.33 & 4 the Orientai insurance Company Limited are granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,10,000!- (Rs.1,00,GOOf- towards enhanced amount of £ compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantified amount of interest i ‘ én the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1 ,O0,000/—) befme 9+he concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 1 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice : «i’Sb : : ubu