HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 02 of 2007 ADDellants Claimants 1. 2. Sukhram son of Shri aged about 45 years; Ghanaram Respondents a Vijay Kumar son of (Adoption Son), Ghanaram, aged about 20 years; Both castes Ghasi, resident of village Kodwa, Police Station Kusmi, district Surguja'C.G. VERSUS Suresh Ram Paswan son of Shri Heeralal Paswan, aged about 35 years, occupation Driver, resident of Chandni Chowk; Ramanujganj, district Surguja C.G. (DRIVER) Jitendra Kumar Gupta son of Shri Satyanarayan Gupta, resident of Main Road Balrampur, district Surguja C.G (OWNEROFVEHICLE) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. (INSURER) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1. Shri R.P; Singh, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri G.S. Patel, counsel on behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.3. ^c\ •1l> ... !- i' ^lr %. l^; ..-^ .ff tff ORDER (14th March,2011) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate husband and adopted son of deceased Faricho Bai are the appellants- before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunal') videaward dated 28.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No.20/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- claimed by •V the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and adopted son of deceased Faricho Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 23.09.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,59,0007- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led* before it held that deceased Faricho Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 23.09.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.15/A- 4181; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any, •^ ^ ^,..;^.}" (L breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensationto the claimants. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. 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 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.9,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation to claimant No.1 Sukhram for the death of.his wife Faricho Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,59,0007- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,59,000/- only. 6) Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha, 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.1,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^- a.- ^K^ 7) Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Jitendra Kumar Gupta, tfte owner of the offending vehicle Truck, also supported the award. 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 compensatiori in thefacts 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.1,59,000/- 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 Faricho Bai used to earn Rs.1,000/- per month as Anganbadi Sahayika; Rs.2,000/- from agriculture; and Rs.1,500/- from other sources and as such, the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month/ the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Faricho Bai, on the date of the accident, was aged about 45 years, we are of the opinion that she could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2005 even by working as an unskilled labour as it is the common practice in the villages of this part of the Country that women folk also work as labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the, compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Considering that there were only two members in the family i.e. deceased Faricho Bai and her husband Sukhram, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and assess the .dependency of the sole claimant Sukhram at Rs.12,000/- per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Faricho Bai was-agod about 45 years and her husband Sukhram also was aged about 45 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 14 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 14 has been prescribed for the age group between 41-45 years. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.1,68,000/-. The claimant - husband is 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. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,83,000/- as compensation for the death of his wife Faricho Bai 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 claimant is 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 itself. 17) 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 for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.24,000/- at Rs.2,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeat filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,83,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.24,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.26,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu