r :v&v% 'v Sfa_.„ ® 1 <i<»aigg i ^ -. "'S f x- ^^" •^^ -tilGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellants Wlisc. Appeal (C) No. 78 of 2008 1. Smt. Nirmala Bai, wd/o Rajesh Chandravanshi, aged about 27 years, 2. Dhannu s/o. late Rajesh Chandravanshi, aged about 10 years, 3. Mannu, s/o late Rajesh Chandravanshi, aged about 08 years, 4. Jhagram, s/o late Balaram Chandravanshi, aged about 55 years, 5. Kevri Bai, w/o Jhagram Chandravanshi, aged about 51 years No.2 & 3 minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Nirmala Bai, wd/o Rajesh Chandravanshi All r/o. Village Kumhi, P.S. & Tahsil Pandariya, district Kabirdham, at present resident of village Khamhi, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, district Bilaspur C.G. Respondents \ VERSUS •I. Fulchand, s/o Jitram Chandravanshi, aged about 22 years, owner and driver of the motorcycle C.T. 100 NO.C/G/09-A/6756, R/o. Village Paraswar, P.S. Kunda, Police Chowki Pandataria, tahsil Pandariya, district Kabirdham C.G. M.A.C. No.78of2008 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Bus Stand Chowk, Bilaspur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu,counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (19'"August,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, district Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 05.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.30,30,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and parents ofdeceased Rajesh Chandravanshi, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 02.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,21,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing 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 Rajesh Chandravanshi died on accouFit of the injuries sustamed by him in the motor accident on 02.02.2007; M.A.C. No.78of2008 rt-.y the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-09- A/6756; as the above offending motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay 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 attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,12,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,21,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Rajesh Chandravanshi in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per M.A.C. No.78of2008 » month and Rs.36,000/- per annum and the claimants' dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum, it has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- awarded by the Tribunal isjust 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.3,21,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Though learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, and the claimants' dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum, we have examined for our satisfaction the material available in that behalf and we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month andRs.36,000/- per annum and the claimants' dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum. M.A.C. No.78of2008 tt^USt 11) Nevertheless, the multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Deceased Rajesh Chandravanshi was shown to be 32 years of age in his postmortem report. In our opinion, multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 16 has been prescribed for the age group between 31-35 years. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rajesh Chandravanshi in the motor accident. 14) 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 entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount-ofcompensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 15) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including 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 tf f(C^\ 'v®g^ i' '^;^.'1 .^. .•'s-'' M.A.C. No.78of2008 <£^ KflBBlltatUll ^BB^a sfc nimmi for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.77,500/- at Rs.7,500/-. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.7,500/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.77,500/-. 17) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rs.77,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.77,500/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 1^1 No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge \: 1