E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. IVIisc Appeal No. 384 of 2005 Appeliants Cfaimants |B Respondents 1 Smt. Sangeeta Banjari, wife of late Vijay Banjari, aged about 30 years; 2 Ku. Tini Banjari, d/o late Vinay Banjari, aged about 5 years; 3 Shivam Banjari; s/o late Vijay Banjari, aged about 3 years; Appellant no. 2 & 3 are Minor, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Sangeeta Banjari, wife of late Vijay Banjari, and all resident c/o Sudhakar Phulmali, piot No. 18/2, Radhika Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsi! and District Durg (C.G.) 4 Tanu Bai wife of late Tukaram Heraman Banjari, aged about 69 years, resident of village & Post Bade Gaon Savner, district Nagpur (Maharashtra). Presently residing at C/o Sudhakar Phulmali, plot No. 18/2, Radhika Nagar, Supeia Bhiiai, Tahsii and District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1 Bhuneshwar Sahu, s/o Pati Ram Sahu, aged about 24 years, resident of Shramik Nagar, near Bedi Feeds, post Jamul BHilai, Tahsi! & District Durg (CLG-) _. (DRSVER) 2 Vishwakarma Prasad s/o Mahavir Prasad, aged about 45 years, resident of Wire Rod Factory fndustrial Area, Bhilai, Tahsit & District Durg (C.G.) (OWNER) 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Akash Ganga Comptex Supela ,0»- ,.<" k 1^ Bhilai, Tahsil & Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) (INSURER) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta,counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (07In December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.07.2004, passed in Claim Case No.63/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.24,15,022.71 claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Vijay Banjari, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.06.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,122/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Vijay Banjari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motbr accident on 19.06.2002; the J _L^. accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.M.P.23-D/97-74; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1 /3rd of Rs. 1 5,000/- 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 muttiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/- under other heads and Rs.13,122/- towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90.122/- as cpmpensation to the cialmants for the death of deceased Vijay Banjari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.1,90,122/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counset for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the <lf'--*^,l s" ii!i!s:^%». ^Jh»^ 4 claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,90,122/- only. 7) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,90,122/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) In a motor accidentclaim ease what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts 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.1,90,122/- 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 Vijay Banjari used to get Rs.2,440/- per month as salary from Dhiraj Kumar Shukla, Contractor, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Though AW2 Dhiraj Kumar Shukla in his evidence stated that a sum of Rs.107.40 per day was being paid by him to deceased Vijay Banjari the document produced in that support (Ex. P-17) reveals that none of the pereons mentioned in that muster-roll was paid for whole of the month. In fact, it reveals that out of the four persons in that roll two were paid for 17 days, ".-.-...'.,~^. y'"~"tt^ -^ vi '!:th'w -•'^ 7.^ •c:y 'Uf one Tor 16 days and the other for seven days only. In ffiis state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the Glaimants' 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 2002 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration. 12) Considering that deceased Vijay Banjari was aged about 31 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-80/- per day even by working as an unskilled 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) By deducting the usual 1/3r<l of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. 14) Considering the age of the deceased, his wldow and children and his mother, we are ofthe opinion that multiplier of 14would be appropriate in the present case. 15) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 14, the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,000/-. The claimants are 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 to the widow. By adding a further sum of Rs.13,122/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,52,122/- as compensation for the death of deceased Vijay Banjari Fn the motor accident. 16) Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the ctaimants 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 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.62,000/- at Rs.6,000/-. 18) For the foregoing reasons, the appeat filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is altowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,90,122/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,52,122/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.62,000/-. 19) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.68,000/- (Rs.62,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of interest i.^aaniu.Mni on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.62;OOS/::5 before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 20) No order as to costs. _-_— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi ^ VI. ';& ^-