‘ Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (24m March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ‘ The unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Dilsai are he appellants before us in this appeai for enhancement of’the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 23.04.2005, passed in Claim Case No.24/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,50,000/— claimed by the appellantsl, claimants, unfortunate widow and parents of deceased Dilsai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 13.08.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,79,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ming of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Dilsai died on account of the injuries sustained byhim in the motor accident on 13.08.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.G.15-ZA-0135; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the t rs... .. W t Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy. 7 conditions, the Insurance Company was Iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. ‘ 4) As the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now’ attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased atr Rs.15,000/— per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000l— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual V dependency of Rs.10,000l— with the multiplier of 17,‘ the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,0QO/-. rBy awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,79,500/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Dilsai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,79,500/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 36) Shri Atan‘u Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the, Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased andin assessing his income at Rs.15,000l- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,79,500/— only. t a 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1 ,79,500/- awarded by the Tribunal 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 should 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 shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- 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 Dilsai used to earn Rs.130/— per day as labour in addition to the agricultural income of Rs.15,000/— per annum, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal in that behalf. wThere was no documentary evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased owned any agricultural’land at all. 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 of the deceased. 1 evethele, the income of ceased assessed by the 1) Nrss the de Triu at .‘OO/- per nnum in th year 2003 is certainly on e we side rqi recsderion. A 12 Considei that decease ilsai, on the date of the aent s d u ys, We are of the opinion that he coul have easi earne Rs.70-7- per day in the year 2003 een byking as n unkilled labo. e, therefore, propose to re-cute te ompesaion tking te income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— onth and .24,/- er annum. ‘ ’ r 3) B ddting the ul /3'd f Rs.24,000/- towards the personal xpenses of the decea, he claimants’ dependency is assessed at ‘s.1,00/- per nu. ‘14 ‘ Cosiding the age of e deased, his widow and parents, e are o inion at ultier of 6 would be appropriate in the ent case. pres 1) By mltipyin th anal dendency of Rs.16,000l— with h ultiplir of 1 the cpensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. _ e ciant are ue enitled to ceive Rs.5,000/— towards i fral eenses; Rs.5,0/- for los of estate; and Rs.5,000I- for loss of conortium to th widw. he laimants, thus, become ntled to reve total sutof .,71 ,OOO/- as compensation for: he eth of deeaed Dilsai n motor accident. 1 _ Lear sel r the pati bmitted that with a view to I 6) ned coun fo res su avid possibl dispue ben the parties before the Tribunal; V abou the period for wh e claimants are entitled to receive ?' @ W bnal Rs15O a e th lor and eures oniat ) rng d D ccid, wa age abot .2223 ear d ly d 5/ v wor a s ur W omp h cnt a h per m Rs000 p 1 y euc sua 1 o e sed t R60 anm ) ner th ec w f the op th mpli 1 5 ulg e nu pe te me 6 om Th lams frthr t re une xp 00 s s e o T c a eti cei a m Rs2 t da cs i the o any e t twee t hic th ”I V" ‘ _ v "\ y 5 I subbu / f ., J“ ' / interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 17) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, includirfg the delay 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.91,500/— at Rs.8,500/—. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rst1,79,500/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71 ,000/— with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.91 ,500/—. f 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental InSUrance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/— (Rs.91,500/— towards enhanced amount 9f compensation + Rs.8,500/— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.91,500/—) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to Costs. V Sd/— Sdl- Sunil*Kumar Sinha ' \ Chief Justice j Judge ,.