'i) HIGHGOURTORCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'Bt.ESHRlRAJEEVGUPTA.GJ.& HON'BLESKR!RANGNATHeHANDRAKAR,J. ADpellants OFiginalapplicant W.A.No: 1132 of2004 1 Smt. Lachchhanbai aged about 32 ~ years, W/o late Shri Ramnath Y^dav 2 Ku. Ganeshiya Bai, aged about 08 yeare, Qfo late Shrt Ramnath Yadav 3 Ky. Ranjeeta^ aged about 08 years, D/o late Shri Ramnath Yaaav 4 Ku. Sangeeta, aged about 04 years, CS/o late Shri Ramriath Yadav No, 2 tQ 4 are minor through their Guardian ;mother Smt. Lachctthanbai. All;areR/oVill.Dihaniya,P.S.Seepat Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bitaspur (C.G.) Respondents QriginatNon- appticants VERSUS AnilYadavagecliabout2:5ye!ars,S/o Ram!al^dav,R/o\fl!l.ehhoteKoni, near PetrotPump Koni; Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur<G.G.5 R.K. Chaurasia, aged about 59 years, S/6 Tundilal Chaurasja, R/o near thdian Oil ^etrot; Pympt T.P. Nagar, Korba TaR. & Distt; Korba Ye.Go,.:,::/'':'.: ,,,;1.^ Branch Manager, ^he New India Ir^^n^ ©ompar^ l^l^ Qffice, Rajendra N^ar phoyyk, Bi^sptir(C.G.) . IVIisc. Aopeal underSSeGtibn •IT3 of Motor VehtGfes Act liffl :i*ii-ifl8i?:iiai i^-J; & Ki'n fi A^ \: '>. ^ Present: Shri Sushil Sahy, eounsel for the appetlants. NoneforrespOndeF»tsNo.1&2thoughserved. Shri Sudhir Agrawal andShri P. Dutte.counset for respondefitNo.3. -~ ORDER (10mSepfemtter,2010) The following orter of the Court wgs passed by RajeevGupta,C.J. This is ctaimants' appeal for enhaneement of the sGGjrapeJTsation awarded by th& Aciditional Motor Accident Claims Tnbtiriial^BilaJ^pt.tr ^fer short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.£!§.%}©<4g^K||!a|Ki e^iim;GgESeNo.09/2004; 2) R j^ l:th^appe{iaiEsgB!NaWIIB^^ate:'';8vtyow'. ^and:^ wnor .d^ rsJ0ft<ae||a|i|a||a|j|M||l|^ici|»s|^|!liggr:a^ ^ urKlerSecttont66<rf eM^F^ftiGle^ motoraccident bn 28.04.20(ra, theTribunalawardedatQtalsum of Rs;1,81,000/- ascQmpensationalongwith.interest @6% per annuin from the date of filing of the claim petition ttll the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny pf the ientjre eyidence led before it held that deceased Ramnath Yacjav died on aceount of v the Injuries sustained t^ him -in the^^ ^ on 2804.2<X53;theacdderAocGurreddueterashandnegligert driving of the dRver of tlTe^offerTding veMiete^^ T^ registratioh :No,G^-l 2ZC/0625; as the above offending vehicle Tanker, on the date ofthe accident was insured with theNew India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conGlitjons, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compehsation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any aDpeal against the award.the above findings recorded by the Tnbunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at .Rs.15,pQjE3/g per annum on the basis of the notional income presentjed anl||E|e sSeeond SGhedule. By dedueting | 1 /3t of Rs.15,00(3/- tG^|r<:lsi|t|e^pereona|;expenses of the deceasect, the •' • I:» : . e!ain^nts|(jet^Glei^iwas|ass|ssecl at Rs,10;0p0/- perannym. By multJplying|tRe^Hj|iuat^6^nidei|By ^ multiplier of 17, the c6m|^risation^^ w^ Rs. 1,7Q,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.11,00p/- ynder other heads,the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,§1,000/- as compensation to the claimants fbr the death of deceased Ramnath Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directey' payment of interest on the above amount of compensatJonofRs.1,81,t300/-@6%perannumfromthedateof filingoftheclaim.petitiontillthedategfactualpayment. 6) Shri Sushil Sahu, tearned counsel for the appeltants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the slalmants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in lilE'iliiii,,;[ilUliU. ":.i ^€^\ "SMa ^?^ ,>:'"KS^'" ^ assessing his income atRs.T5,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,81,000/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal andShri P. Dutta, learnedcoynsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contendedthat as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compenSation of Rs.1 ,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compehsation in the faets and circumstances of the presentcase. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, tKe compen^tion to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals shoutd be jyst an(l;pr6pe|ie8(DpeiisatJon in the facts and cireumstances of the case 11 should neither be a meager amount of compensation, hor a Senahza. 9) Now^we shall examin^as^to whether the cQnipensation of Rs.1,81 ^)00/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts ahd circumstances of the preseht case. 10) True, the claimants pteaded that deceased Ramnath Yadav used to eam Rs.100/- per dayas Labour in the Stone Quarry, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not findany fautt in the approach ofthe Tribunal in disearding the claimants'evidence about the income of the deceased. " •s&aa 'f .' •'.^t S'iS»- i«a ws s^s' "¥ 115 Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the TriBunal at Rs;15,000/- per annum is certainty on the lower side andrequiresreconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Ramriath Yadav was agect about 35 years on the date of the accident,we are of the opinion that the deceasey could have easjly eamed Rs.60-70/- per day even by working as an yn-skilled labour in the year 2003. We, therefbre, propose to recompute the compensation taking the ineom& of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,QOO/- iRe^annum.' ;:<, • :.; ^ , : • ; ; • ;1^)Y ^E^IidillliBn&^lusual ^<3"1 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personat| ({^^loflstB6fciclecj^sed, ^he^Glaimarte' depemde^^ i;iis^ass6ss^ltat1iR||||6|g^|^RE|l^[u!N''::, ^. ?'::-.': :• '1^®'Cjonsicl^Sg||)|fidietS|a|i||^rnnaW^^ 6Fageonth®dateOfthe^aceide^t;rnultiplierof16^ would be appropriate in the present case in view of the recent dictum ofthe Apex Court in theease of Sarla Verma (Smt)and Others Versus Delhi TranspQrt CorporatiQrt and anottier, reported in (2009) 6 SGG 121, wherein multiplier of'lfiwas prescribet^fortheagegreupbetween 31-35 years. 15) By myltiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with themultip|ierof16,thecompehsationworksouttdRs.2,56,000/-. The claimants are furtherentitled to rSeeiveasumof Rs.5,000/- towards furieral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for toss of estate; and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to^the widow. The claimants, fc <' <':'^'/.- thus, becomeentitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/-as compensation for the death of deceased Ramnath Yadqv in the motoraccident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute hetween the partjes about the period forwhich the claimantsareentitled to receive interest on theenhancedamountofcompensati0n,theamountof!ntereston the enhanced amount of compensatiori may be quantified in this appealitself. 17) Considering all the retevant aspeetsofthe matter, including the delay ir^ disiposat of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact thatilnsuraitK^ Company alone is not to beblamed for the entire tielay^jnsthe ma^ interest orithe eBharK^e^tnouN^GSmpensationc^ atRs.11,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,71,000/- with further quantified amount of, interest of Rs.11,000/- on the enhanced amount of •-,/'/ ..••'... • .. • '•"•'".'' .'; . , • .'. ";- • ' ". compensatjon ofRs.90,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 The New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'time fer depositing the total sum of Rs.1,01,000/- (Rs.90,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.t1,000/- towards quantified amount of iiil .lli; interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/-) before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge subbu -^s. \. 'l^.'