"frl^ ^ CORAM' H< ^iain'iianis 2. Smt Gomti Bai, Wd/o Ganeshram Sahu aged about 37 years. Ku Santoshi, D/o Lakhan Lai Sahu, aged about'16yrs. 3. Firan Bai, Wd/o. Pyare Lal Sahu, aged about 55 yrs; (Afl resident of' Village Kumhari, Dlstfict DUFQ, Pr$39nt Adds Village & Post Urkura, Tah. .& Dist. Raipur (CG) 4. Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu, aged about 23 yrs. 5. Pratap Bhanu Sahu, s/o. Ganesh Ram Sahu, aged about 21 years, No.4 and 5 are residents of Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari Chowki, District - Durc Non-aDpllcants 1. Laxminarayan, s/o. Vishal Sahu, r/'o. Ramnagar, Supela Bhilai, Near Muktidham Scnooi, Distt. Durg. 2. Smt. Gurmit Keur, w/o. Shlvdayal Kaur, r/o. Sirsa Road Kohka, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, CG. 3. Narendra Singh, s/o. Swarn Singh; Kohka Road, Bhilai, Tah. & DIst. Durg (CG). Insurance Co. Ltd,, through- Divisionai Manager, United India Insurance Com. Lta'., Jail Road, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, C.G. ./^Sh ^' ^ y - .^?^^. ^ iky'jj "%>.. ~';%^ ^ @ lal, s/o. not r/o. Sirsa Soad Kohka, Bhilai, Distt. (CG). 'resent: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1, 2, 38s4 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4. ith The foi order of the Court was oassed bv "his is claimants' appea! for enhancement of compensatiQR awarded by the 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 4-10-2005, passed in Claim Case No.28/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,53,000/- claimed by the appellants/ ciaimants, unfortunate widow', minor daughter and mother of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu, by ftling a claim petition under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehides Act, ror his death in the motor accident on 02.05.2001 , the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation a'ong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the clalm petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on \ y (2y 02.05.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos. M.B.S.-1243 and C.I.T.-8552, respectiveiy; as the above offending vehicles Tractor-Troliey, on the date of the accident were insured with the United india Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance not establish any breach of the policy condltions; the Insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimants. 4) As t'ne respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the' Tribunai have now attained finaiity. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the' basis of the notional sncome prescribed in the Second Schedule under Sectlon 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the persona! 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 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-. Sy awaraing further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation to the ciaimants for the death of deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu jn the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/- @ 6% per •.-^twp^^^ ^^^i-a,^, v^y:~% 1 .'^/ annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 6) Shri S.C. V/erma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred In not accepting the clalmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in Iv; and In assessina his income at Rs.15,( awarding low compensation of Rs.87,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4 the United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported t'ne award and contended that a^ the ciaimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just ana' proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is Important is that; the compensation to be awarded bv the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances case. it should neither be a meaaer amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 3) NQW we shalt examlne as to whether the compensation of Rs.87.000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month byworkina as Turner in H.lmmat Steel Plant, Kumhari, the evidence ied in that behalf was ..-'••iSSSSV' ,;,f^":s~'z£:^^.^ I^:yl 1 ^ not of clinching nature. Neiiher any salary certificate was produced by the ciaimants from the said Company nor any Manager or other worker of ths said Company was examined before the Tribuna.i to establish that the deceased was worklna in the said factory at all and was getting salary to the e>dent of Rs.4,000/- per rnont'n. In this state of evidence, we do not find ariy fauit in the approach of the Tribunal in disca.rding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased. 11) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribuna! at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2001 is certalniy on the lower side and requires reGonsideration. 12) Considering that deceassd Ganesh Ram Sahu was aged about 48 years, we are of the opinion that he could haye easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as an unskilied labour. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per mont'n and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 13) Bv deductina the usuai 1/3 of Rs.24.000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) The multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, in our opinion, is appropriate and does not calt for any interference. 15) By muitiptying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the muitiDlier of 8 the compensation works out to Rs.1,28,000/'- '%, :1^.- o The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss ofestate; and Rs.5,000/- for ioss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a tota! sum of Rs.1,43,000/- as compensation for the death or deceased Ganesh Ram Sahu in the motor 16) • Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to ayoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the daimants are entltied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in thls appeai itself. 17) Considering a!! the relevant aspects of the matter, includina the deiay tn 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.56,000/- at Rs.5,000/-. 18'j For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant&' claimants for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.87,000/- swarded by the Tribunal i-s enhanced to Rs.1,43,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-. 19) Respondent No.4 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.61.000/- (Rs.56.000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.5,000/- tov/ards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/-) befors the concemina Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- Rangnath Citasidrakar Judge i nimmi