> F?. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH n' CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. ADDealNo.417 of 2005 ADDellants ResDondents Smt. Kiran wd/o late Sunil Kumar age 24. Girish Talreja S/o Sunil Kumar aged 1 yr 5 months through mOther appellant No.1 Both R/o Pooja Goods Transport, Bhatapara, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Mansoor Ansari S/o Kamsuddin Ansari, by Gurupal Singh S/o Balwant Singh. Gurupal Singh, S/o Balwant Singh Both No. 1 & 2 R/o T.P. Nagar, Korba C.G. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P. Nagar Korba, through Divisional Manager, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur C.G. Bhagwan Das, s/o late Saman Mal, age 57. Smt. Ambri Devi w/o Bhagwan Das, age 54 Both No. 4 & 5 R/o Pooja Goods Transport, Bhatapara, distt. Raipur C.G. MEMORANDUMOFAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 1730FTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 9S.& .:,.'-""'^ « Present: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for respondents N0.4&5. Misc. Appeal No.946of2005 ADDellants Respondents 1. Bhagwan Das, aged about 57 years, S/o late Shri Saman Mal. 2. Smt. Ambri Devi, aged about 54 years, w/o Shri Bhagwan Das. Both appellants R/o Pooja Goods Transport, Bhatapara, Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1. Mansoor Ansari S/o Kamsuddin Ansari, through Gurupal Singh S/o Balvant Singh, T.P. Nagar.Korba. 2. Gurupal Singh, S/o Balvant Singh T.P. Nagar, Korba. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., T.P. Nagar Korba, through Divisional Manager, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madeena Building, Karaci Chowk, Raipur C.G. 4. Smt. Kiran aged about 24 years widow of Sunil Kumar. 5. Girish Talreja, aged about 1 year 5 months S/o late Sunil Kumar Talreja (Minor) through his next friend mother Smt. Kiran Talreja. Both R/o, C/o Mulchand Kanhayalal Ghutani Jorara district Raipur C.G. WIEhflORANDUMOF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEMICLES ACT (& % Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri G.'y.K. Rao, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER (25th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned award dated 13.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.11/2002 has given rise to filing of these two appeals for enhancement of the compensation. M.A. No.417/2005 has been filed by Smt. Kiran and Girish Talreja, widow and son of deceased Sunil Kumar, whereas M.A. No. 946/2005 is at the behest of Bhagwan Das and Smt. Ambri Devi, father and mother of deceased Sunil Kumar. The parents in their appeal are seeking only enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas the widow and minor son of the deceased are seeking enhancement of the compensation as well as modification of the apportionment of the compensation by the Tribunal between the claimants. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- claimed by the claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased Sunil Kumar, by filing a joint claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.12.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date ofthe award till the date of actualpayment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sunil Kumar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.12.2001; the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving ofthe driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.M;B.T.-8999; as the above offending vehicle Truckon the date of theaccidentwas insured with theNew India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish ariy 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 tKe 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 of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,OOCV- with the multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Sunil Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 417/2005, who are widow and minor son of deceased Sunil Kumar submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the daimants' evidence about the incomeof the deceased and in assessinghis income atRs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annumonly; in selecting the lower multiplier of 15; in awardinglow compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only; and in directing equal share from the above compensation to the parents also. 7) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 946/2005 filed by the parents of the deceased also submitted that the Tribunal has erredin assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- only. ' 8) Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Truck, on theother hand,supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is justand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) In a motor accident claim case, what is important isthat, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should bejust and proper compensation in the factS and circumstanGes ofifhe B:!' case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the present case.. 11) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Sunil Kumar used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month as LIC and Small Savings Agent, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income ofthe deceased to that extent., In this stateof evidence, we donot find any fault in the assessment ofthe inGome of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/-per annum. 12) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13) The multiplier of 15selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 14) Considering that deceased Sunil Kumar, on the date of the accident, was aged about 27 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 17 would be appropriate in the present case inview of the dictumof Vfe Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC121, wherein multiplier of 17 has been prescribed forthe age group between 26-30 years. | |1"'T!- 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. The claimants are further awarded 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.4,23,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Sunil Kumar in the motor accident. 16) The claimants are further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-. 17) Considering the ageof the widow and minor child of the deceased and his parents, we direct that the entire enhanced amount of Rs.23,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- shall be payable to Smt. Kiran, widow of deceased Sunil Kumar only and the other claimants shall not be entitled to get any share from this amount. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the appellants/ claimants (M.A. No. 417/2005 and M.A. No. 946/2005) are allowed in part. The compensationof Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,23,000/- with further quahtified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.23,000/- towards enhanced amount.of subbu compensation + Rs.2,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compehsation of Rs.23,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 20) The entire enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.23,000/- and the quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,000/-, to be deposited by the insurer ofthe Truck now in compliance ofthis order, shall be payable to Smt. Kiran, appellant No.1 in M.A. No. 417/2005, who is widow of deceased Sunil Kumar only and the other claimants i.n the two appeals shall not be entitled to get any share from thisamount. 21) No order as to costs. ! -1--1111- ! Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge