i/f‘vfwa .x \”\ , mGH COURT OF CHHATTimARH AT BILASPUR E mViSiam BENCH 1 $QRAM: HGN’ELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. I HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR S§NHA, .5. Misc. gggea! No. ?9 of 2903 { i (Driver of the vehicte No.6PS—9842) eiizgnw 1. Pradhan Budha Mahakur, aged ggpplicanE ’ about 55 years, son of Shri Raghumani Mahakur 2. Smt Shimadri Mahakur, aged about . 50 yearS, Wife of Sim Pradhan Budha Mahakur 3. Smt Raw Mahakur, aged about 25 years, wife of Late Shri .Dolamani Mahakur 4. .Balasiya Mahakur, aged about 1Q years (minor), Son of Late Doiamani ' Mahakur 5 Kumari PaHawi Mahakur, aged about 7 years Minor}, daughter of Late Shri Doiamani Mahakur 6 Kumari Mamta Mahakur, aged about 5 years, daughter of Late Shri Dolamani Mahakur ‘ Appeiiant No.4 to 6 through its natura§ guardian Le. appeilant No.3 AH are residents of Kabir Nagar, V'rirage Londongari, Rrng Road No.2, Raipur (Ghhattisgarh) VERSUS Resnondents 1. Gopai Singh, aged about 4O years, Non—appeiiants r Son of Balswaroop Singh Raipoot, residence of Tara Compiex, Bhirai, Tah and Bier“: Durg {CG} to 2. St Usha Jain, wife of Ash Jain, residence of Tara Compiex, Bhilai, B m ok urg, Tah and Di$tt Durg - (Chhattisgarh) (Owner of the vecle No.PS-9842) The United ndia insurance Company; Regional Office Krishna Compiex, ty, Tah and Distt Raipur ice) (insurer 0f the vehicle No.CPS-9842) 5).. M W3C: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE‘MOTOR a resen: Shri R. Pradhan, Shri Pawan‘eshan/vi and Ms. Shashi Bareth, counsei far fhe appeiiants. Shri Shreekuma Agrawai, Senior ounsel with Shri‘ Anand Gupta, ounsel fer respondent No.3. ‘ {zed February, 2911.) The following order of the Court wee pasd by Ra Gupta, C, This is claimants’ appeal for enhanement of the compensatio warded by the Fourth Additional Moor Acident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.10.2002, passed in Claim Case No.66/2002. 2) ' As against the compensation of Re.6,25,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, widow and minor children of deceasedDolamani Mahakur, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.102000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum hi C I ; Ci VEHICLES ACT! 1988 Pt Kan r C c ORDER se jeev .J c n a t c 0- . .HMUA VA f RS1 75 OODI- as compensation a!ong With interest @ 9% per nnum from the date of fmng of the ciatm petmon t1“ tha date or dua! payment The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led m‘ m‘Vw*_w“ 4 3 i i ioieiore it heid tnat deceased Doiamani Mahakur died on account of he injuriee sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.10.20Q0; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver i " ‘ of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.8PS—984-2; as the above offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the accident vvae insured with the United lndia insurance Company Limited and l he insurance Company could not establish any breach of the i l itioucy conditions, the Insurance Company‘was liable to pay comoensation to the claimants flit As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai have new , 1 attained finality. 1) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,DGO/— per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163~A of the ivictor Vehicie Act. By deducting 1K3“ of Rs.i5,0DO/- towards‘the personai i expenses of the deceased, the ciaimant’s dependency Was assessed at Rs 1O OODI— per annum By multipiying the annual ebendencv of RsiOOQO/— With the multibiier or 17 the compensation was worked out to Rsi {O OOOI— By awarding i f rther sum of Rs 5 000: under other heads, the Tribunal awarded i l i i 1 i l i i - i a total sum of Rs.1 ,75,000/-‘as compensation t0 the claimants far me death of deceased D01amani Mahakur in the-motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above‘ amount of compensation of R31 ,?5,000I- @ 9% per annum from {he date of wing of the claim petition tiii the date of aotuai payment. ) i Shri R. Pradhan, Shri Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Shas‘ni i Eareth, iearned counsel for the appeiiants submitted that the {tribunal g4 has erred in not accepting the ciaimants’ evidence about 4‘, u he income of the deceaeed and in assessing his income at Rs.15,00D/— pei' annum oniy; and awarding low compensation of Rsi ,75,000/— only. 7) $hri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri I tAnand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3; the United ;lndia Insurance Company Limited; on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants ooyid not estabiish :the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of ,Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) in a motor accident ciaim case; what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be iust 3and proper compensation in. the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. l/ e t l i . t l /x” \ i Q) Now we shaH examine as to whether'the compensation of Rs.1,75,000/— aWarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and oircum5tances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Doiamani Mahakur used to earn Rs.3;OOO/— per month by working as Helper in, Vikas Iron industries, ne cogent and retiabie evidence was ied y . before the Tribunal to establish the above employment of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.3,DOG/- per month. ln this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of i the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased. i it} Nevettheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annu‘m in the year 2000 is certainly on the lower'side and requires reconsideration 12) Considering that deceased Dolamani Mahakur, on the date or: the accident, was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion ‘ that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2000 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, ‘ propose to re-oompute the compensation taking the income of the i i deceased at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000f— per annum. H3) i By deducting the usual 1/3” of Rs.24,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/'- per annum. x 14) Considering the age of the deceased; his Widow; their children and parents of the deceased; we are of the opinion that ‘ multiplier of lS‘meuld be appropriate in the present caee. i 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000!— with l the multiplier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. i The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000I- towards funeral expenses; loss of estate; and loss of consortium to the l u u l l widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total Sum l }o‘i Rsi2.50.0DO/- as compensation for the death of deceased c Doiamani Mahakur in the motor accident. l l 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced ; amount of compensation; the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in thigappeal itself. 17’) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matterx, including the delay in dtsposai of the claim petition, and the present appeal l and the fact that the insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire detay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest ion the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/~ at RslOOOfar 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The cempensation oti'Rsi1,75,GOQ/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,50,00D/- with further quantified amount of interest avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for 33x off Rs‘7,000!- on the enhanced amount of wmpensation of Rs.75,00Q/—. 19) Respondent No.3 the Unimd India insurance Company Lilmiieci is granted three months’ time for depositing the iota! Sum of Rs.82,000/— (Rs.75,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.7,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of RSVSIOODL) before t, ‘ 20) No order as to costs. / / A i‘ Sdl- " \i \ Sunil Kumar Stnha Sd/— Judge 1 ‘ i i CHIEF JUSTICE {We M subbu